Animal Vegetable Miserable Essay

Language is powerful and can evoke guilt, fear, admiration, and joy. At times, however, emotional language has a negative effect when the author uses words that seem to disrespect or guilt the audience. In Gary Steiner’s essay “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Steiner debates that veganism is the only acceptable lifestyle because it does not endanger the lives of animals. Although Steiner clearly explains his firm stance, he uses a disdainful tone when relating personal struggles that ultimately disconnects the audience. Steiner does not relate and does not effectively prove veganism would end all animal suffering. Instead of discussing the advantages of veganism in an objective manner, Steiner’s tone comes across as arrogant and fails to create

The essay of Gary Steiner, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” advises that a vegan lifestyle is an ethical lifestyle. He is a strict vegan which means no meat, cheese, eggs, or anything that contains animal products and byproducts. Steiner seems to be an animal rights advocator, and his essay pushes his beliefs with the hope that his opinions will gain the attention of people in American. The written responses to Gary Steiner's article, “Ethical Choices in what We Eat” argues and agrees with his pro-vegan argument. Many conflicts in the use of animal products in our lives, but the tone of his essay can sometimes undermine the reader affecting his cause to help eliminate animal slaughter.

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

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 matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

Imagine sitting around eating you’re sitting in a restaurant eating your burger and you see a cow in the back. You might think was the cow that I’m eating mistreated? Or did they have a good quality life before they became my meal. This is why many decide to not eat meat at all because they fear what happened to that animal before it became their meal. Author Gary Steiner is an American moral philosopher, and Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University. He explained this best in his paper Animal, Vegetable, and Miserable, along with other pieces of work that focused on animal rights.

Jonathan Safran, a vegetarian, states that, in his Juvenalian article “A Case for Eating Dog” the human race should be condemned for eating an animal’s meat, for it is a moral taboo to do so. Safran argues that eating any animal, be it a cow, or a dog, is something to take ignominy in. The author, Jonathan Safran, uses the satirical device of travesty to create a serious, firm atmosphere, which conveys that eating animals is a shameful practice. Safran argues that while, yes, a large number of dogs-and other animals for that matter- are wasted every year, it doesn’t give us permission to eat animals every bit as smart as animals we do eat. It is stated that “pigs are just as smart as dogs”, but we still eat them (Safran PPG 5).

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

In November 2009, Gary Steiner, a Philosopher, author and Professor at Bucknell University, wrote an article in the New York Times entitled, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable.” In the article, Steiner discusses how unethical he believes it is to use animals for human consumption. In addition to consuming animals, Steiner writes that it is inhumane to use any products that were made from sacrificing animal lives. The article goes on to say that recently, more and more people have become interested in where their meat comes from and how the animals were treated before they were killed for human desires. The writer further states that some people are concerned with how well the animals are treated before they’re killed, while others are concerned about whether the animals are given harmful additives to their food that could affect the health of the consumers who eats the animals. On the contrary, Steiner believes that no one is worried about how immoral it is to kill the animals in the first place. The author concludes, “People who are ethical vegans believe that differences in intelligence between human and non-human animals have no moral significance whatsoever” (Steiner 847). I will argue that Steiner’s essay is biased, contradictory and generalizes that only strict vegans are ethical, and I will explain that the only reason for his strong persuasive article is to convince everyone to become vegan under the excuse of being moral individuals.

He compares eating animals with human welfare He makes an extraordinary ppoint by observing individuals who justify eating animals because they believe humans are superior to them. He claims people who call themselves advocated for human rights purchase just "uncaged" meat. Doesn't killing it refute the solaces that were given to it when it was being raised? Steiner made one strong point that at first strengthened his argument until becoming offended by his claim that anyone who does not live a vegan lifestyle is uncompassionate. He sarcastically states about a Thanksgiving turkey, "All it ever had was a short and miserable life, thanks to us intelligent, compassionate

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

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.

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