Animals : A Source Of Food

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.

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.

A man should never go through an animal for its nutrients, when that animal receive all of its nutrients from plants. One man such, author Wendell Berry, wrote " The Pleasures of Eating," published in 2017, and he argues that every individual should be educated in what happens to their food before it becomes food. Many people are oblivious to what harmful things animals are put through in order to one day become our meal. Berry's intended audience is every single human being who eats meat, and even those who do not. I know this because Berry mentions the importance of individuals understanding where their meat comes from and why they should not let animals be treated this way. Berry assumes that individuals would not like to be treated that way, so why should animals be treated this way. Berry's purpose in this piece is to inform all humans of what inhumane things are done to animals in order to provide as one of our temporary fills. Berry's writing is somewhat credible and valuable because he is currently a farmer and currently a writer, he gives personal viewpoints and few examples, and he provides emotional statements about animal cruelty.

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.

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.

According to the anthropologist Professor Henry Bunn of Wisconsin University the use of animals for food dates back to two million years ago, when, “our human ancestors were small brained ape-men” (McKie, 2012). The use of animals for a source of food, clothing, and even entertainment is not something new to us. But what is fairly new are the animal rights movement groups as well as legislation that have formed in the last century to protect the rights of animals and preventing animal cruelty in slaughter. There are specific movements and laws such as the 1958 Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the 2015

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.

Consumers of factory-farmed meat support the mistreatment and suffering of animals on factory farms. It is not that humans and nonhumans should be treated identical, rather that animals ought to have the same basic principle of equality as humans. In “All Animals are Equal,” Peter Singer clarifies “the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration” (Singer, 29). This still begs the question, what makes farm animals worthy of moral consideration? One answer is that animals have the ability to suffer. The capacity for suffering, as Singer suggests, is a “prerequisite for having interests at all” (Singer, 34). Singer asserts “the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is, however, not only necessary, but also sufficient for us to say that a being has interests – at an absolute minimum, an interest is not suffering” (Singer, 34). This claim is entirely plausible, as it is clear that the animals in factory farms have the capacity to suffer. Even so, there is a common

An estimated fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered every year just for human consumption. The consumption of these animals is now redundant and wasteful because meat and dairy products are not necessary for the majority of human’s survival. Humans should stop eating animals and animal by-products because it is morally wrong, this is due to the fact that many of the animals humans consume can feel pain. Humans should stop eating other animals if it is not essential for their survival. In addition, the conditions that animals are subjected to in farms and slaughterhouses are harsh. Moreover, the amount of grain that is required to feed farmed animals is high and can be used to feed humans instead of animals that will inevitably be killed

Author Gary Steiner is a philosophy professor at Bucknell University. Also, a devout vegan, he has focused much of his recent works on the notion of animal rights. In his essay “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” he confronts the cruel and immoral abuses animals face from their human counterparts. He does so in a profound manner, reaching through the pages of his essay to really get those wheels turning in his reader 's minds. His primary goal in writing this essay is to get people to focus on the important issue—to re-evaluate years and years of socialized thinking that humans are superior to animals. He even addresses one of the common excuses humans use to justify killing animals, “animals are meant for human consumption.” How do we know this? Because our culture and the bible tell us it is OK. But is that simply enough? Steiner insists that it’s improper to raise animals in a life of confinement and fattening only to face the butcher 's knife in the end. Not to mention that many of the basic products consumers purchase at their local stores contain animal elements of some sort. Many of whom are completely unaware and wouldn’t think twice about them containing any sort of animal byproduct. But after reading this essay, one might want to consider thinking again.

Like humans, animals also exhibit such reactions when killed. This evidence disputes the notion that animals do not feel pain. It follows that no animal would be willing to terminate its life for another animal’s survival; that is, an animal will not kill itself for the benefit of another animal. According to this argument, meat-eating humans should understand that it is not morally permissible to exterminate other animals for their survival. Additionally, some societies argue that the pain that a human would experience is no equitable to the pain animals experience. This is a misleading statement since all creatures experience pain when killed. Thus, “meat eating is not ethically accepted since it causes a lot of pain to animals” (Singer and Mason, 2007).

Animal cruelty continues to plague the meat and dairy industry and a policy to reverse this is enacting stricter regulations on meat and dairy labels that explicitly state the additives and preservatives used on the product. Moreover, my policy will persuade people to purchase meat and dairy that is ethically raised and is not made with preservatives or additives, this is my value of health. Moreover, my policy is for those who eat meat and dairy and are unaware of the health side affects of consuming it and the animal cruelty that goes into producing a piece of meat or glass of milk, which encompasses my value of compassion. We are a compassionate species who turns the channel during an ASPCA commercial. We root for Nemo, Babe and Bambi yet we watch the movie whilst eating fish, pork or venison. The hypocrisy is unbelievable yet not talked about. Most Americans do not recognize this link between our compassion and the animals we eat and the hypocrisy that surrounds it. In this essay I address the compassion humans posses and how it is being wiped out through eating meat and dairy. I also address how we have the potential to rid the meat and dairy industry of the abuse. I will also discuss how meat and dairy is detrimental to our health.

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

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.