Ethics and Morality in Vegetarianism

In “The Psychology of eating Animals,” published in 2014 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastion, and Nick Haslam argues the psychological process of “meat paradox”(104). Loughnan and Haslam earned their degree in Psychological Science from University of Melbourne and Bastian also earned his degree in Psychological Science from University of Queensland(104). Many people have different thought process when eating meat, they explain, “to understand the psychology of eating animals by examining characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior)”(104). In the another study that they cites shows; that vegetarians have moral concerns for animals that are being used

Empathy is the ability to understand and experience the feelings of others, particularly others’ suffering. Humanity’s gift of understanding complex emotions ushers in a new way of understanding ourselves and how we react to stimuli. This ultimately leads to questioning of everything, leading us to one strong notion: Does empathy guide or hinder moral action?

Eating animals is normal for any carnivore, but abuse to these animals is unacceptable. There are religions and traditions when it comes to eating and killing animals, usually to be viewed sacred and not like they are nothing. Humans have morals and traditions that separate barriers with farm animals and pets.

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.

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

​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.

Throughout time humans have forged sympathy for numerous animals, created from the relationships we have developed over time, bonding and interacting with them. We have a grimace look with an animal that's been physically abused or a farm animal being butchered for the meat that eventually make its to the grocery shelf. Having watched videos on supermarket suppliers we don't realize the apathy of some various meat, dairy and egg industries that settle their animals in heinous conditions and have utter negligence for their sentience. It becomes certain that these wondrous animals who provide us with an ecological resource are not respected and action is necessary to punish those individuals. As a society we sometimes disregard the death of some animals, it's unfair but we are just biased on the affection we show to certain animals.

In the last century, scientists succeeded, to a great extent, to reduce humans from many different components into just a genetic component, disregarding all other components, especially the spiritual one. Sadly, the majority of the people have fallen into this trap. As empathy is one of the many expressions of the humans’ spiritual component, spiritual component itself is a reflection of human connection to the Creator. When human spirituality is in danger, it will naturally reflect negatively upon the person’s empathy. He will be careless and heartless about the life of others as well as his life, the condition of the neighborhoods and the society at large will deteriorate with him. Because the people all over the world are closely connected

Killing Animals Kills In Peter Singer’s, Animal Liberation, he argues on what he defines as speciesism. Speciesism is like racism, where it is the mistreatment of another species. The main idea of this piece is how we treat the animals we seem to co-exist with as a nation.

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.

Empathy has played in a key role in the way society runs for many years. Some people are empathetic towards everyone while others show little to no empathy at all. Many people are making a case on whether or not there should be a greater emphasis put on empathy throughout society. Some say that without empathy society lacks the ability to feel what others are feeling, while others say that feeling for others doesn’t always call them to action. Instead of a greater emphasis on empathy throughout society, there should be a greater emphasis on moral codes throughout the community.

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.

Knowledge of empathic behavior is essential for an understanding of social and moral human development and prior to the technological advancement, empathy was not understood biologically.

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.

According to a recent poll 6 to 8 million American’s do not eat meat, fish, or poultry. From these studies, they have been researching about the effects of a vegetarian diet on the body. Compared to most meat based diets, vegetarians consume less saturated fat and cholesterol from not eating meat. Choosing this route will have a person what would be considered a better quality of life and overall good health. Research so far has shown that a vegetarian diet reduces the risk of heart disease. In recent years a study was done using different participants and the results showed that vegetarians were 25% less likely to die from heart related problem. “This is because vegetarians tend to consume more high-fiber, whole grains, and legumes which have a low glycemic index and the body digests slowly. This keeps blood sugar levels steady. Another food item that helps reduce the risk of heart disease is walnuts” (Sixwise). This is because the omega-3s in walnuts help reduce total cholesterol. There is some controversy over this specific topic, thus, are they really that healthy? What does it mean to be a vegetarian, and what do professionals have to say about being a vegetarian?