Ethical Argumentative Analysis

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.

Because of this, humans view animals as lesser beings which can be controlled, eaten, and abused at our discretion. Singer argues against this way of thinking by acknowledging the similarities between humans and other “lesser

Factors such as where the animal is kept, what it is being fed, if steroids are used or not, and the well being of the animal all must be taken into consideration. Consuming meat that has been pumped with steroids and kept in tight quarters while being raised is far from ethical. The meat also will be worse for human consumption because those are not good things to put in an animal so they are even worse to put in a human body or to feed to kids, who rely more heavily on getting the appropriate nutritional needs because their bodies are still growing. The consumption of meat is ethical for numerous reasons, however the process of how the animal makes it to the table may not be ethical and that decision comes down to the consumer and how he or she chooses the meat that they consume depending on how morally the animal was treated before it was made available for consumer consumption. “Consider the Lobster” by David Wallace highlights all important aspects of lobster consumption. He begins by telling people how sufficient lobster meat is to our bodies, but also brings to his audiences’ attention how it may be unethical and cruel. Although Wallace considers the life of a lobster and other animals, he ends his paper with the statement “the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human beings” (Wallace 470). Ethically, this mindset is reasonable and is also the way that most people in society feel as well. In “Ethics and the New Genetics”, the Dalai Lama tells his readers the importance of “the need to ensure that we hold compassion as the key motivation for all our endeavors” (Dalai Lama 69). The sad truth is that some people in this world do find pleasure in eating animal meats and products, some even find compassion and pleasure killing these animals. Everyone grows up

For decades philosophers have argued the rights of animals and animal suffering. It was Descartes who first proposed the mechanistic theory of the universe, the aim of which was to show that the world could be explained without relying on the concept of subjective experience. This approach was extended to the issue of animal consciousness. Descartes’ asserted that animals were nothing but ‘complex automata’ and are unable to respond in complex ways to ‘all contingencies of life’ thus reasoning that animals are not conscious and

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

In his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as

way to justify moral judgments. His argument for vegetarianism excludes people who need to eat meat in order to survive, for example, indigenous people. He began with providing nine propositions, which he believes are held by people of normal moral sensibilities. (P1) Other things being equal, a world with less pain and suffering is better than a world with more pain and suffering.

Timothy Perrine Siddharth Kharbanda 11/14/2014 Singers Utilitarian Case for Vegetarianism SECTION-I (EXPLANATION OF THE ARGUMENT) In this essay, I will be considering Peter Singer’s Utilitarian Argument/Theory for Vegetarianism. For Singer ‘Utilitarian’ word means “The morally right act whose consequences maximize the total balance of pleasure (interest satisfaction) minus pain (interest frustration) when considering all beings affected” Singer explains that the suffering of livestock animals is a real and great evil and directs individuals to become vegetarian (or vegan if they can) on the grounds that this will undermine the economics of industrial farming and thereby reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world.

It doesn’t make sense to eat meat when there is no need to do so. Humans can live long, happy, and healthy lives on an all plant-based food diet. Sense this is correct, there is no need to continue to put these animals in pain that is no longer necessary for our survival. The treatment of these animals is inhumane and brutal. This treatment is equivalent to a person beating up your dog and killing it because they think it is fun. The only plausible reason humans eat meat is merely for the taste of it. Who doesn’t like a nice juicy steak, but if you were to really know about what it took for that piece of meat to reach your dinner table and truly understand the pain and suffering, then you would never order that piece of steak again.

Do we as individuals have moral responsibilities tied to our food? Peter Singer and Jim Mason, two controversial and influential authors have arisen debate over the ethics of eating animals. Many of those who favor vegetarianism insist that eating meat is as repulsive as condoning racism or slavery in past centuries. Eating meat is natural. It appears to be likely that humans are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat. When vegetarians talk about doing the right thing, they are not talking about doing the natural thing. To you, it may be just a meal, but to them it is their life.

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?

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.

Based on the utilitarian’s perspective eating animals is ethical. The text states “all but the most radical animal rightist are willing to balance the human benefit against the cost to the animals (p.686).” We weight our options and in this scenario, the human benefit outweighs the cost to the animals. In mentioning that people who are against killing animals can come to understand that some suffering is necessary Pollan strengthens his stance. Pollan writes “human pain counts for more than that of

Compared to killing in slaughter houses, hunting and being hunted are common in nature. For instance, prairie dogs, who depend on the white-tailed jackrabbit as a food source, bloodily kill hundreds of rabbits everyday. However, for those poor rabbits dying miserably and painfully, we never question the ethics, nor do we try to stop prairie dogs from killing them; instead, we call it natural selection. We justify this instinct of

Around the globe, there is vast misunderstanding in nearly every culture that it is a natural instinct for humans to kill and eat animals. As science has proved time and time again, this simply is not true. Many believe that we as humans have evolved to be omnivores, but surprisingly it was not until recently (historically speaking) that humans began to consume meat (Greer). This is a simple misunderstanding that costs many their lives and is also detrimental to our planet. As humans, we physically do not need to eat animals to survive, it is inhumane, and it is taking a huge toll on our environment.