Essay on An Argument for Vegetarianism

In his article "Vegetarianism and the Other Weight Problem", James Rachels argues that meat eating is immoral and it is a moral duty to be vegetarian. In order to discuss the problems and come up with his conclusions, Rachels considers two arguments for vegetarianism.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

a vegetarian for the past four years. Her personal nutrition habits and values can be attributed to her favorable stance towards plant-based diets. The essay’s context is set in the middle of the rising veganism fads popularized by celebrities and mainstream media. As a student, Breslaw’s main audience are her fellow peers, professors and those concerned with lessening their carbon

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

Morally, one may feel obligated to exercise Vegetarianism due to the inhumane treatment of animals throughout the farming process. The issue is that roughly ten billion animals are raised for United States food consumption alone. Animals such as cows, fish, chickens, pigs, and turkeys are subjected to

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Peter Singer is a moral philosopher that approaches ethical issues from both a utilitarian and vegetarian point of view. Utilitarianism is a theory in which one’s action maximizes utility, to generate total benefit and reducing negatives. In Peter Singer’s essay, Utilitarinism and Vegetarianism, he argues that people who follow and apply the principles of utilitarianism should ultimately become vegetarians and that vegetarians should follow utilitarianism. This paper will review and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in Singer’s essay.

After the guilt sets in from eating for the sake of pleasure, Scruton brings forth a multitude of facts and makes an effort to appeal to ethos. To do this, he addresses the benefits of small-scale livestock farming, the use of animals in scientific experimentation, and the actions taken against animals that promote harm. This flood of ethical evidence continues to leave readers wondering if Scruton is a vegetarian himself.

As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention

This essay analyzes the ethical argument for veganism through the lens of philosophy using Utilitarianism defined by John Stuart Mill, and Deontological ethics according to Immanuel Kant. Through the use of these theories, I will justify the moral worth and legitimacy of the animal welfare debate that is often used to promote a cruelty-free and vegan lifestyle by analyzing questions of animal sentience, the worth of an animal’s happiness, and the right humanity supposedly has to the lives of other living creatures. Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics will provide two philosophical insights into the reasoning of a life abstaining from harming animals.

As different crazes and fads are appearing each day, we have come to expect them to simply fade away as the hype passes. However, veganism has stood the test of time in our fad society and is still increasing in popularity. Originally only thought to be a religious lifestyle, many people from different walks of life are becoming vegans. However, this poses many questions and sparks heated debates, mainly from omnivorous people who believe that veganism is against life’s natural order. Vegans, then, argue against an omnivorous lifestyle by bringing up facts about humans’ biological makeup and how humans are, contrary to popular belief, herbivorous by nature, not omnivorous. While both sides present good arguments to some, the veganism lifestyle contains more benefits and less harmful cons than an omnivorous lifestyle.

For human, to master agriculture and trade about 10,000 years ago widely expanded their food options that enable modern human to become a vegetarian (Corliss). A vegetarian does not eat meat not only because it tastes bad, but also it means something to him or her. The more one has faith in vegetarianism, the more one restricts one’s food choice in reality. Henry David Thoreau, who is known as one of the first environmental writers of the 20th century in the U.S. and had lived in woods alone, writes in his essay Walden that hunting and eating animals had bothered him because it seemed as it degraded himself to a beast. For him, eating animals is “not agreeable to [his] imagination” (Thoreau 169) as Thoreau strongly believed that “to leave off eating animals” is “a part of the destiny of the human race” (Thoreau 170). While his belief and the reality he faced had conflicted each other, he tried his best to find a way to live without relying much on meat. Even in a wild, what drove Thoreau was anthropocentric thinking that human can control nature. This dilemma in food choice that bothered Thoreau is what Michael Pollan calls the omnivore’s dilemma. He puts it in his same-titled book in this way: “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,