Animal, Vegetable, Miserable By Gary Steiner

“Against Meat” by Jonathon Safran Foer (2009, New York Times Magazine) is intended to educate current non-vegetarians on what vegetarianism is, the benefits of it in terms of health and animal rights, and also the struggles of consistently being a vegetarian. Although Foer does not specifically express what a vegetarian is we can assume he is going off the generally known definition of a person who does not consume the meat of an animal, as oppose to a vegan who does not consume any animal products at all. According to an article about vegetarian Americans, 5% or 16 million Americans classify themselves as vegetarian in 2015, compared to the 1% back in 2009, making vegetarianism a growing trend throughout the US (Raw Food World). Foer proves his opinion on vegetarianism by backing it up with facts from the USDA and his own personal experiences with his babysitter, growing up struggling with being a vegetarian that loves meat, and the decision to marry and raise his child vegetarian. Foer does, however, have a few gaps in his argument about nutrition, the costs associated with vegetarianism, and the lack of a definition of vegetarian.

After realizing that all of the food and water consumed by their family was either piped, shipped, or driven to them in the middle of the desert, novelist Barbra Kingsolver and her family decided to pick up their lives and move from Tucson, Arizona to to her childhood home of tobacco and dairy farms in southern Appalachia. Kingsolver and her family intended to spend the next year living in a more connected way to their food and where it comes from, and this book is the result of that experience. Part journal, part academic inquest, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, tells the story of their project to live sustainably in a place “where rain falls, crops grow, and drinking water bubbles right up out of the ground” (p. 3). Their year would consist

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

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

I’ve experienced confusion and anxiety over messages about food since I decided to become a vegetarian almost eight years ago. Contradicting information from scientific studies, social pressures, and irresolvable questions of ethics have played tug-of-war with my opinions, and those of most other Americans, throughout our lives. Pollan argues that this distress of being required to make choices among so much conflicting and biased information has turned America into a food-obsessed society, one that is eternally focused on but paradoxically distracted by the seemingly simple issue of what to eat.

To improve their articles support, the writers for Vegan Outreach should rely mainly on logos to back up their claim that animal consumption is morally wrong and that they should switch to a less cruel alternatives to source food. Although the authors do originally provide evidence throughout the text, their argument is poorly constructed. For example, in one case Vegan Outreach used a statistic without indicating from where they attained the statistic “...[b]y avoiding the meat of chickens, turkeys, and pigs, you can prevent the suffering of more than two thousand of these animals during your lifetime!” (11). The initial issue with Vegan Outreach’s document is that it fails to reference their work, the second issue is that it does little to reference the sample statistics of other animals, which makes their application of logos unreliable. In addition, this example statistic is not their

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.

In 2011, American filmmaker, Marisa Miller Wolfson, made a 76-minute documentary titled, ‘Vegucated.’ Wolfson, a practicing vegan, cites her research on foods and especially animal-based foods as her rationale for opting to go vegan. Notably, upon going vegan, she became healthier, lost weight, and even felt happier because she was no longer contributing to the inhuman treatment of animals. In her quest to become a vegan, Wolfson made the film after moving to New York City. Her concurrent idea in the film is the effects of animal diets versus the effects of vegan diets. Evidently, through its participants, the film illustrates that avoidance of animal products results to weight loss and

In the Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer, expert in Applied Philosophy and Bioethics, addresses controversy head-on by unraveling public misconception about meat consumption, bringing critical attention to how the animals are treated before they are killed, as conscious beings that share the planet with us. He points to the grocery store and the meat aisle where animal meats are purchased that give imagery of spacious ranches and animals grazing on grass peacefully in lush pastures. In fact, this is not the case at all. The lives the animals lead prior to being butchered are brutal, tortured existences, of unimaginable grief, that no living being capable of conscious thought on any level, great or small, should ever endure. Singer illustrates, that meat manufacturers don’t want the public to know this is the case, spending more than 11 billion dollars per year in deceptive advertisement, to convince the public otherwise, obscuring the horrible truth. This selfish, greedy advertising leads Americans to follow the Standard American Diet (SAD), characterized by high consumption of animal-based products, like meat, eggs, and dairy, high in fat and excess protein, consumed in larger than needed portions, more often than needed, paving the way to heart disease, high blood pressure, low energy, and unhealthy living, while meat producers rake in revenue. Singer asks his audience to reconsider the foods they eat, providing valuable insight into why they eat these foods, and

Animals have been integrated into people’s everyday life, regardless of differences among each individual. People influence animal’s lives greatly, and animals influence people’s lives greatly whether it’s intentional or unintentional. It’s a constant cycle of give and take, give and take. Without one another, though, the other would be rendered futile. In “Animal Vegetable, Miserable”, Gary Steiner claims that humans are not superior to animals, therefore, humans should not use animals for their personal benefit. In rural America, relationships with animals are very different than Steiner’s. Small towns like Hotchkiss tend to have a view on animals that suggest that animals are on this Earth for human use; after all, humans are on the

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.

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.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main