Annotated Bibliography On Animism

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

Meat has been a staple food in the diet of mankind since the early ages of civilization. In the article “Is Any Meat Good to Eat?” by Sarah Boesveld, she interviews author Jonathan Safran to share his opinion on eating meat and factory farming. He believes that “...if [people] just ate according to the values they already have, then factory farming would disappear.” Whether or not people realize the sources from which meat in modern day society comes from, they cannot deny the fact that meat is delectable. Sadly, many people who are aware of where their meat comes from will argue that it is unethical to eat meat that is grown purely to satisfy the hunger of people. The ethics of eating meat should not be considered because of the extreme

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 the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a

“Meats, Dairies, and Eggs, Oh Why” (2014) is an argumentative essay written by Rebecca Dent that explains the benefits of eating a plant-based diet and advocates for the better treatment of the animals affected by the meat industry. Dent supports her assertions by discussing the negative health effects of an omnivorous diet, addressing reasons some might be hesitant to convert to a plant-based diet, describing the advantages of substituting meat for vegetables for both the consumers and the animals, and finally, by including expert opinions and statistical facts. Dent’s purpose for this essay is to highlight the benefits of vegetarianism in order to convince readers to convert to a plant-based diet. The intended audience for this argument is those who currently eat an omnivorous diet so that they would assess and change their eating habits.

In his essay, “Against Meat”, found in the They say/I say readings, author Jonathon Safron Foer analyzes how he became a vegetarian and how it affected his future lifestyle. Foer delves into his childhood and explains what caused him to become vegetarian, as well as the people that influenced his decision. He also discusses the importance of what pursuing this type of lifestyle can do for those that decide to follow his footsteps. Although meat may contain types of protein and other favorable aspects, Foer and others argue that, in the long run, abstaining from meat provides to be more beneficial for your health.

Animals, in affluent countries, are needlessly suffering due to human’s gluttonous desire to consume meat. This essay supports the argument that human beings, living in relatively affluent countries, are morally obligated to refrain from purchasing as well as consuming factory-farmed meat. A reduction in purchasing and consuming factory-farmed meat would diminish unnecessary animal suffering.

Vegetarianism always seems to be a contentious issue. Vegetarians think that there are a lot of advantages of vegetarianism. They may have good health since they can keep their weight down, live longer and avoid toxic chemicals. Also, they push more waste out of their bodies and, thus, feel more energetic. More importantly, to some extent, they spare animals and save more lives.

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

A growing number of people are concerned with the rights of livestock. Some are demanding basic human rights for these animals because animal abuse laws do not apply to them. The meat industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which tries to maximize profits at the expense of the animals which can ultimately affect humans as well. Organizations and people are trying to expose the meat industry with academic journals, ads, and documentaries. Not only are organizations and individuals targeting the industry, but they are also targeting the heartstrings and ethics of the audience. Ava Park wrote an academic journal, “The Dark Side of White Meat,” which takes an academic approach when analyzing the treatment of animals in the meat industry. PETA

Many people question the ethics of the meat industry as they face the challenges of production and quality to serve our growing population. As consumers become more informed on the industry, new data is being released to show the health benefits of animal protein in the human diet. Based upon this new data, many people are questioning whether they should cut meat out of their diet completely and are looking to find a way to eat meat as ethically as possible. For some concerned with the ethics of eating meat it strictly comes down to killing animals, but it can also start with how the animals are treated. While there is no way to make any industry completely ethical, there are ways to make informed choices which can lead to a more ethical approach to the industry and its consumers. As demand increases and society becomes more informed on the meat industry, people are finding that there are ways to consume meat ethically.

Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the

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.

It’s safe to say that majority of people, particularly those who live in places where pre-made food and conveniently packaged goods are readily accessible, don’t put much thought into what they use on a day-to-day basis. Although what goes in to making these (mostly) essential items may not seem to be of much importance, it is easy to forget that animals and animal products are principal staples of human consumerism. Because they are living, breathing beings that are capable of experiencing pain, it becomes necessary to question the morality of using animals for the sake of human pleasure. In this discussion, I will go beyond the vegetarian argument to argue that abstaining only from eating meat is not the end-all moral solution to problems involving the treatment of animals; rather, the vegetarian argument must encompass the avoidance of all uses of animals in order

would be like saying that the letter W explained the alphabet. He also believed that the