Feminists on Meat-Eating

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 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.

During this semester, we discussed many interesting topics that touched directly the main direction of locavores. The concept of locavores is relatively new and the food industry and represents the values of local food that are a healthy food for our society. I was interested in an interesting article called “Locavores, Feminism, and the Question of Meat” by Kathy Rudy. This article discusses the relationship of feminism with locavorism and how this feminist approach relates to meat. Opinions about meat are distributed; many believe that meat should not be present in our diet, while others believe that meat satisfies the demand of buyers. That is, opinions about meat are always divided into 2 categories; this is also how to divide people into meat eaters and vegetarians. As I understand, the feminists in turn very much approve and absolutely support local food and especially local meat. Let us return to what is local food for us and how important it is for us. Local food comes from a variety of activities, such as environmental sustainability and nutritional value of taste. Local food pushes people back to start cooking and enjoying labor, as well as participating in home food.

a vegetarian for the past four years. Her personal nutrition habits and values can be attributed to her favorable stance towards plant-based diets. The essay’s context is set in the middle of the rising veganism fads popularized by celebrities and mainstream media. As a student, Breslaw’s main audience are her fellow peers, professors and those concerned with lessening their carbon

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 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.

Thesis statement: There should be meat free alternatives and more awareness of the benefits of choosing a vegetarian lifestyle as eating less meat is better for an individual’s health and the environmental.

This is said because in order to grow all the vegetables we need large fields, and when farmers use tractors and other equipment they kill lot of animals like mice, rabbits and other field animals. One perspective she takes on is that why is it okay for vegetarians to kill these animals but meat eaters aren’t supposed to kill for food. Last, according to Serbenz, “our digestive tracts make us omnivorous.” Some vegetarians believe that humans aren’t meant to eat meat in the first place.

The articles from Carol J. Adams and Cathryn Bailey articulate the idea that meat is masculine and elitist. Adam writes about the patriarchal system that says that animals are seen as weak feminine figures. He also mentions that meat is sexualized and consumed predominantly by men. As well as, Bailey (2007) mentions, “...no moral theory of any substance could escape charges of being dogmatically judgmental, elitist, or worse.” (p. 55) This explains that theories will always be heard in the heteronormative way as that is what is seen as ‘moral’ within traditional cultures. However, she says for many poor women that were non-westerners had a hidden privilege of being able to eat vegetables which were their ethical choice. (Bailey, 2007, p. 52)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.