Can It Be Morally Permissible At Eat Meat When Plant Based Foods Are Available?

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.

As argued by Wrangham (as cited in Christopher Joyce, 2010), “It is because of an animal based diet that allows the development of human’s brain and keeps life healthy, thus human can reproduce strong offspring, plus it creates the social interaction amongst mankind, since meat requires cooperating with the cooking process. Therefore, the consumption of meat is

It used to be very common just to eat any meat we pick up from our local grocery store such as Walmart or Target, but with this upcoming millennial generation’s new lifestyle expectations, people are starting to care more about what they consume and how they treat their body. It is important to understand where the food that is being put in your body is coming from and whether or not it is really what you think. Most people understand that eating meat is healthy and good for you always, but the manner in which the animals the meat is being produced from are raised affects the way it tastes and how it either damages or helps the body. I personally believe that people should eat humane meat because it is much safer for the human body due to it

Meat is part of a balanced diet. If humans stopped breeding animals for meat, then we would have to hunt all the wild animals for food. The wild animals will be hunted into extinction because of gluttonous meat-eaters. Because of factory farming, meat is now available at all time at the super market. This makes meat convenient to obtain and eat nutritionally. Meat contains all the essential amino acids that we need every day to remain as healthy individuals. Minerals and vitamins that are also beneficial to the growth and development of the human body are found in meat too. Eating specific types of meat such as fish provides healthy natural oils that cannot be found anywhere else. Abandoning meat as a source of nutrition means we will need to compensate with another source of sustenance.

​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.

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.

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).

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.

The mere thought of abstaining from meat makes some revolt, an instinctive reaction to giving up something they enjoy so regularly, but lots of folks do it because they believe it is the healthier option. Though, when thoroughly looked at, that isn’t always the case.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

     It also needs to be pointed out that meat production industry is highly unfriendly to the environment. It has been proved that the results of this mindless actions are extremely harmful to the whole planet: trees are lost in creating farms for animal food, land is taken away from wildlife, additional erosion is caused, topsoil is lost, groundwater is wasted, and pesticide is excessively used. In fact, one chicken farm uses as much water as a little city. Few may know that this industry, compared to others, causes the biggest pollution at all.

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.

    First off let's start by talking about why people think eating meat isn’t a big deal, and why it's ethical. One major reason why some people think it is ethical is because the fact that we have been doing it for millions of years. Humans have been around for a long time. About 2.5 millions there was a fossil recorded that was stone tools that humans used to butcher meat, also animal bones with corresponding cuts on them. Another reason is that studies show that if we weren’t consuming meat than we wouldn't had evolved the same and possibly wouldn't even exist.

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

products for mass consumption, especially through factory farming, is environmentally unsustainable. According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practises of raising animals for food contribute on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."