Ethical Argumentative Analysis

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.

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.

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.

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 consumption of meat over recent decades has become more than just a means of nutrition for the body, but also a game of hunting animals for recreation and sport. Along with the popularization of hunting animals for sport came the early endangerment and extinction of certain species. With this hobby the question arose, is it ethical to hunt and or eat meat? After reading “Consider the Lobster” written by David Foster Wallace, a person may consider the history any meat goes through before it is ready for consumption. However, the consumption of meat is seen as a normal thing to do on a daily basis, especially in America because our meals are typically centered around the meat being the main item of the meal. After reading “Ethics and the

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

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

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

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.

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.

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.

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

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.

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