...A Practical Stand on why it is Okay to Eat Meat. By: Francisco Ron For: Professor Hill January 22, 2012 As humans we recognize that we are at the top of the food chain. There are many contrasting views on the subject if it is morally right to eat animals. Anthropologists discovered that when humans learned how to cook with fire there was a major evolvement in the human brain. By cooking meat from dead animals that were hunted, a viable source of protein was introduced and adapted throughout our history. Obviously humans are so intelligent that we have now created a way to extract protein from other non-animal sources. Is that a justificatory defense not to eat meat? Eating meat is not wrong, but the whole process of how the meat gets to our freezers is not morally right. Animal rightist may say that the meat eaters are involved in speciesism. The discrimination of animals based on the belief that humans are superior. Animal rightist do not eat animals because they are living things and can suffer. Aren’t plants living things? And therefore, they may suffer when killed too. If that was the case, humanity will had starved to death long ago. So why is eating a cow or a chicken so wrong to these people? I would like to believe the reason behind animal rightist not eating meat is on the practice of how the meat is handled. There have been numerous reports about animal abuse and malpractice in farms and slaughter houses. I do not agree on how the cows, pigs, and chickens...
Words: 687 - Pages: 3
...discuss the ethics of eating meat. They bring in several different authors to discuss this idea. However, while they bring in the authors’ the clearest conclusion that they make is that, The moral distance between the food choices made by conscientious omnivores and those made by the most of the population is so great that it seems more appropriate to praise the conscientious omnivores for how far they have come, rather than to criticize them for not having gone further. With that said, I believe that they have not taken a clear stand on whether or not it is ethically ok to eat meat. They bring in Pollan’s idea that if you eat meat that has had a good life, then it is ethically ok to eat meat because, if you did not eat meat then the animals would not be alive. However, with that idea they do bring in the idea that the animals that we eat were once wild animals that had become domesticated. They also brought in the point that by domesticating animals we helped them survive. They heled to show this with the...
Words: 664 - Pages: 3
...You Are What You Eat Linand Blanc Professor Pamella Robinson Principles of Sociology 7/30/2011 Abstract Some may think that carrots and brown rice are healthy eating habits here in the United States. However there are some places in the world including the US where toasted insects, roasted cat and dogs, and even raw monkey brains are a delicacy. Whether you yourself would eat these types of food or not, we know that humans have been consuming cats dogs and yes even monkeys for decades. But my question is why did they find the need to eat these types of meats? Were beef, chicken, fish and pork not enough? Or maybe we’re the ones who don’t know what delicacy eating really is. Maybe we shouldn’t have such a closed mind to eating cats and dogs. Maybe by the end of this week I will be one that becomes an Entomophily. The Holy Bible goes into great details on what we can and cannot eat. The dietary laws prohibit eating pork, shrimp, and shellfish of any kind, most insects, scavenger birds, and various types of other animals. (Leviticus chapter 11) Although the Bible doesn’t say anything about the domestic animals such as cats and dogs but many religions consider the consumption of these animals to be taboo. In some parts of the word others have resorted to eating felines and k-9’s in desperation during hard times and poverty, and others believe that eating them will bring good luck or good health. Cats and Dogs In North China eating cats is considered...
Words: 989 - Pages: 4
...Final 1. In James Turner Johnson’s article ‘Threats, values and defense: does the defense of values by force remain a moral possibility?’ (60) he cites four justifications for war. What are they? From a pacifist’s point of view why are these reasons problematic? In this article the four justifications for going to war are: defense of the innocent, recovery of something wrongly taken, punishment of evil, and defense of aggression in progress. From a pacifist's point of view there are some major problems with these justifications for war. Each and every justification is met with its own singular problem. The defense against the innocent seems like it is justified but there arises two arguments against it. In a war more than just soldiers are killed. Other civilians will be killed and many of the soldiers don’t want to fight, they are just ordered too. That means we are killing innocent civilians and soldiers to protect some innocent. From a utilitarian view we must ask if this the death of the innocent will outweigh the death of the other innocent if we do or don’t go to war. Yet, deontologists would say that killing is bad and that needs to be punished because killing is wrong. So kill people to stop killing. For a pacifist that is just wrong. The other problem from defending the innocent is that violence is key in war and many times over we have been shown that violence is not always the best way. We should try and support people and ideas like Gandhi, to win with non-violence...
Words: 2443 - Pages: 10
...If you are so proud of it, be a 100% non vegetarian. If you can't cut your dog and eat it for dinner, if you can't cut your mother and serve her for lunch (someone said humans also die), then you are made to be a vegetarian. Some animals are bred to be eaten, so the entire "animal population will increase if they are not consumed" is wrong. Thinking that way, human population is the most on earth now, so why don't you kill them and eat? Some theories that talk about the economic impact that "meat breeders will go out of jobs" are wrong. They will simply switch to breed what people eat - vegetables. Nature is giving us clear signs to stay away from meat. Our long canine teeth are gone, so is the appendix. People who say there is no protein in veg food should may be stop eating meat so the animal fat on their brains can subside and they can think. Ever heard of legumes? And the argument that plant also has life - yes we know they have a life. When you eat something that can grow back (a brinjal or a mango), it is not called killing. I hope your chicken legs grow back once you eat them. If you are so proud of being a non vegetarian, we challenge you to become a 100 %non vegetarian. Don't include any vegetable in your diet. If you can't think of the pain an animal feels when it is being killed, may be you will be subjected to the same pain some day. Good...
Words: 269 - Pages: 2
...Vegetarianism is the dedication of human beings to a diet that excludes all kinds of meat and fish and instead focuses on consumption of vegetables and fruits as well as byproducts of animals. Vegetarianism is not only followed as a choice but it can be also based on the religious beliefs as well as human rights. The issue of eating meat as being morally permissible or impermissible cannot be answered in a word answer due to the fact that the people are raised differently either based on religious beliefs , as a moral background in a family or as a fight for the animal rights. If one consumes meat and they were raised on a religious belief that the eating of meat is wrong, then in answering the question, it can be viewed to a large extent as immoral due to the fact that it is impermissible as per religion. Not consuming meat as a result of teachings that one was taught for example by parents cannot be said to be impermissible due to the fact that one has the right to make their decisions in terms of what they decide to eat as well not eat. Consuming meat as an activist who fights for the rights of animals is considered impermissible to a large extent is also immoral due to the fact that it is pretense (Hill, 1996, pp 179) Even though one has grown up in an environment whereby consuming meat is not wrong there is the existence of facts that exist and create a good basis as to why the consumption of meat to an extent be said to be impermissible. Some of these facts and principles...
Words: 376 - Pages: 2
...Meat Consumption and Vegetarian People should eat less meat or become vegetarian? Steven Zhou Royal Roads University Marianne Kettlewell November 26, 2015 Meat Consumption and Vegetarian People should eat less meat or become vegetarian? Throughout human history, it is clear that carnivores have dominated food culture since Primitive Society. Meat has been maintaining the development in human beings for thousands of years. Unexpectedly, as time has gone by, the meat industry has caused major environmental and health problems. For instance, livestock is now responsible for 51% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions, which negatively affects the environment. Eating lots of meats could also adversely affect health, leading to many illnesses like Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia. Therefore, some people think we should eat less meat or become vegetarian. Despite these strong arguments, personally, I do not agree with this opinion, for reasons outlined below. From a perspective of health, a vegan diet is harmful to the nutritional balance, for instance, vegetarians are short of protein and calcium. Meat, such as beef, has abundant protein, six ounces of lean, chuck beef, braised contains 49.2 grams of protein, 505 calories and 32.59 grams of fat (Dr. Decuypere's Nutrient Charts). What is protein? Protein is a nutrient that the body needs to grow and maintain itself. Next to water, protein is the most plentiful substance in our bodies. In other words, protein plays...
Words: 1393 - Pages: 6
...only are GMOs safe for consumption, they are also safer for the environment. Using GM technology allows farmers to use fewer chemicals such as pesticides. It also allows them to use more environmentally friendly planting techniques that cut down on soil erosion, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and also pesticide use. Because of the reduction of pesticide and water usage, GMOs help to keep production costs down. This technology helps reduce the price of crops used for food, such as corn, soybeans and sugar beets by as much as 15-30%, which essentially keeps food affordable for consumers. One in eight people around the world do not have enough to eat, but these safe, affordable methods of food production, like crops produced through GM technology, can help us feed the hungry (GMO). All of these people who do not have enough to eat can be fed with the help of GMOs because they produce crops in larger...
Words: 1089 - Pages: 5
...Wellness What's wrong with what we eat? 1. What is the overall message that Mark Bittman is trying to get across in his Ted Talk? Mark Bittman's overall message is to promote and convince people to stop believing what everyone believes about diets and the type of food they consume. People don’t eat real food anymore livestock that is raised industrially is not real food if you have to inject vitamins and steroids to animals to make them grow that is not real food. In today's society there's no family dinner, now we have frozen pizza or some type of frozen food. If you stop eating less meat and more plants we would be able to change the world and also let livestock on its own natural habitat and not raise them in industries. 2....
Words: 846 - Pages: 4
...Eating meat has become a ritual since mankind was created. Hunting to survive and to feed, or in other words our ‘survival instinct’ is one of the few traces that our ancestors have left the modern mankind today. Although mankind are not carnivores per say, we have evolved into thinking so. The majority of us have been brought up eating meat and presumably, have never questioned it. Taking these into account, how ethical is meat eating? One can argue that non-human animals also have the same rights and killing them for food and using them as a mean to human gratification, does not treat them respectfully. The fact that one has been raised to eat meat is cannot be an explanation of why mankind started eating meat and it cannot justify the claim that eating meat is ethical. Yet most of us have no idea that when we eat meat, we are in fact making a subconscious choice. When we were growing up, forming our identity and values, it is fair to say that generally our parents decide on whether we eat meat or not and opposed to making our own choice. We were never asked to reflect upon this daily practice that has such profound unethical dimensions and personal implications. Eating animals were just a given; it was just the way things were. However, this kind of argument allows us to eat human flesh all that required is that one is raised in a cannibalistic tradition, because then we can say that ‘this is the way that things are! But what if in a culture eating human was ethically...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...he can get off on watching dogs getting slaughtered. What Americans who view these snuff films seems to overlook is the fact that he proudly states "I pose as a representative for a Rich American buyer who wants to make a weekly Dog Meat purchase to bring to America" What I find amazing is the fact that not one reporter actually says "Hey wait "Rich American?" Don't you believe that would adversely effect any American who tries to...
Words: 1341 - Pages: 6
...the surface of the food system. Climate change, fuel prices, and the economy are all indirectly effected by the agriculture business. Most of the food you purchase probably comes from a conventional farm, and was processed in a factory and then packaged, shipped, and sold at your local grocery store. Conventional farming usually involves working with GMOs for a higher crop yield and more of a profit. However, while it may be cheaper to purchase that food, in the long run organic has more health benefits for you. Organic uses much less synthetic pesticides to grow, and this enhances the production of vitamins and antioxidants in the plant. Organi2c seems like the obvious choice, right? I've grown to not be too trustworthy of the USDA and what they supposedly label "organic" since understanding their misguiding language. Most USDA organic certified foods aren't entirely organic. "Made with organic ingredients" can mean that only 70% of it is actually organic, and "organic" in foods with multiple ingredients is at least 95%. Many people choose to purchase from local organic farms and community supported agriculture (CSA) groups. This way, they know where their food comes from specifically and while it may be slightly more expensive, it cuts down on fuel and the environments overall exposure to Co2 by having food come from somewhere close to where they work or live, or at least come from somewhere within the same state. While some would feel that the USDA is cheating us this way...
Words: 1506 - Pages: 7
...Caula Rogers Bio-220 Environmental Science July 6, 2014 Professor Sharar Sustainable eating for health and humankind final report Food can become the instruction manual of our choices in becoming more healthy or to become a “junk food addict.” Still the food obtainable to us can be further harmful to us than good- both to our health, as well as to the health of the earth. Next, to the climate change which contributes to the extreme weather that loom protect food supply. “ For instance, the consumers , and the employees of the corporations, they make the decision about the foods being sold, which gives us the way to create, process, conveyance, and use foods. Also the United States as well as other countries, has a great deal of support from the government for commodity crop such as “wheat, corn, and soy production this also goes through the use of government subsidies. The government support for commodity crop has successfully made farmers ignore, more healthy crops; furthermore, a great deal of industrial crops grown here in the United States are being used for animal feed in “concentrated animal feeding operations ( CAFOs), also better known as factory farms.” With the support of the government the industrial crop production has increase in corn, as well as soy-fed animals, this also increased production for foods that use corn that is high fructose corn syrup; this ultimately contributing to the commonness of health problems for instance, heart...
Words: 1073 - Pages: 5
...The Multiple Benefits of Grass-fed Meat Animals that tend to naturally graze in the fields play an important role in maintaining our health. Also these animals can protect the environment. However, farmers who feed animals grain in feedlots can cause several health risks. This article that is attached explains the difference and the benefits in grass-fed animals versus industrial-fed animals. Most meat we tend to eat today seems to be chemically induced. This causes a high rise in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, poor immune systems, not to mention dementia, and in some cases cancer. Why? The reason is because farmers are finding a faster and easier way of feeding their animals instead of the natural way. An industrial farm is basically a linear farm that uses nothing but fertilizer, seeds, and water. This produces your grain for cows and other animals. Nothing is wrong with that, right? One would think that but the nutrient cycling solely depends on the nozzle that sprays anhydrous ammonia fertilizer (Manning, R. 2015). This is not healthy at all. In order to establish a healthier ecosystem we need more natural grazing animals. Without them, the grass grows old and rank not to mention the lack of nutrients the animals are getting. A great type of ecosystem is the Circle of Life system. This captures life and death, storing and reinvesting energy. Large animals can’t really survive without this process. The benefits of grass-fed meat are numerous. They contain high concentrations...
Words: 381 - Pages: 2
...I believe that something is ethically wrong with the new trend in pork production. It is creating excess waste, degrading the value of the land it utilizes, as well as polluting water and air miles away from its plant locations, causing unjust costs to the public and environment. The big problem is that the new method of producing pork in factory rather than farm settings creates a buildup of waste material. Each pig produces two to four times as much fecal matter as a person, and the factory setting allows this waste to seep into rivers, lakes, and oceans – killing wildlife and creating pollution (Foer 13). On the other hand, an appropriate number of animals raised through traditional farming methods allow manure to go back into the soil as fertilizer for the crops that will become the pigs’ feed (Foer 11). In addition the factory farms have caused an estimated $26 billion dollars in degradation to American land (Foer 12). Pork companies, lead by the Smithfield company which has had sales of $12 billion in 2007 (Foer 14), would say that there is not a problem with the way they produce pork, because it is what people want. The entire food industry is ultimately driven and determined by the decisions people make about what to eat and unless we make new choices the industry will have no reason to stop the growing trend away from traditional farming into the mass-production which has been encouraged by American’s decision to eat more meat than any other culture in history, while...
Words: 1524 - Pages: 7
