Food And Eating In Christianity And Hinduism

It is a known fact that every human being communicates through language, but perhaps a little known fact that we communicate even through the food we eat. We communicate through food all the meanings that we assign and attribute to our culture, and consequently to our identity as well. Food is not only nourishment for our bodies, but a symbol of where we come from. In order to understand the basic function of food as a necessity not only for our survival, we must look to politics, power, identity, and culture.

Neither life nor culture can be sustained without food. On a very basic level, food is fundamentally essential for life, not simply to exist, but also to thrive. A means by which carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, nutrients, and calories are introduced into the body, food is a mechanism of survival. However, on a more abstract level, food is also fundamentally essential for culture by establishing its perimeters and dimensions and in shaping its authenticity and character. Food becomes the

When studying food in its entirety: its classification, structure, and the way it’s utilized, it becomes obvious that food is closely tied to food-getting strategies; social, democratic, and political constitution; intimate ties of social relationships; ecological vigor and vitality; and the physical and mental wellness of an individual and group. Besides water, food is the most fundamental element of life that we need for our species to survive and thrive; everybody has an appetite for food. Food is a cultural artifact that is central to human life, identity, and bonds we share with our communities. As an artifact, food plays a significant and meaningful role in our everyday connections with “nature through culture,” that translates

Different religions have beliefs that certain foods are sacred and then some are considered “tainted”. People that are Hindu believe that the cow is considered to be sacred. The reason being, they consider the cow to be a symbol of life; so cows may not be killed in the Hindu religion. They also believe in the harmony of living peacefully with nature, so they only eat food they believe help or hurt their physical or spiritual development. Closely related to Hindu’s is the religion of Buddhism. Many Buddhist don’t eat meat and don’t partake in the drinking of alcoholic beverages. Like the Hindus, Buddhist believe that a person returns as something or someone else, so a person could come back and live again as an animal. That is why the Buddhist don’t kill animals because they believe that it could have been someone they have known reincarnated. Interestingly enough, they also ask themselves questions before eating their meal. The questions they ask are: what food is this, where did it come from, why I am eating this food, when am I going to benefit from this food, and how

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.

In China, Buddhism is an ancient religion with numerous followers. Vegetarians are generally regarded as Buddhists because people know that Buddhism is a religion that prohibits eating meat. Buddhism originated in ancient India, which found by a prince of realm called Gautama Buddha in three thousand years ago. (Henry, 2012) It spread to China in the Western Han Dynasty. It not only brought a new religion for China, but also had a profound impact on the vegetarian culture at that time. We will describe the relationship between the Buddhism and its vegetarian culture through food varieties of vegetarian diet, dishes, and the benefits to the human body.

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

“Food, for her, is not food. It is terror, dignity, gratitude, vengeance, joy, humiliation, history and, of course, love” (Foer 450). Foer is passionate about eating

As a meat eater, has anyone ever asked the question, “How can you eat meat?” The controversy of being a meat eater or vegetarian has been around for decades. David Foster Wallace wrote a thorough article, Consider the Lobster, in which he brings up popular topics of concern over eating meat. Is it morally wrong to eat the meat of an animal, or creature, who suffered for one's own hunger? Why should one have the right to decide the standards of pain? Questions included in Wallace’s article have had many in a whirlwind of emotions and opinions. As a vegetarian, one will know the full truth concerning health, recognize false advertisements, understand how animal pain relates to human hunger, and acknowledge the treatment of animals up until their deaths.

Arora’s harsh language generates the reprimanding and critical tone with “How is it unreasonable then to say that nearly all meat-eaters in America participate quite directly in a cycle of suffering and cruelty of a staggering scale”. In this quote he provokes the audience to question themselves, and by doing so Arora receives the answer he

Food, has a specific meaning to all of us; for some it is a form of nourishment, for others it is a cultural act,

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?

For human, to master agriculture and trade about 10,000 years ago widely expanded their food options that enable modern human to become a vegetarian (Corliss). A vegetarian does not eat meat not only because it tastes bad, but also it means something to him or her. The more one has faith in vegetarianism, the more one restricts one’s food choice in reality. Henry David Thoreau, who is known as one of the first environmental writers of the 20th century in the U.S. and had lived in woods alone, writes in his essay Walden that hunting and eating animals had bothered him because it seemed as it degraded himself to a beast. For him, eating animals is “not agreeable to [his] imagination” (Thoreau 169) as Thoreau strongly believed that “to leave off eating animals” is “a part of the destiny of the human race” (Thoreau 170). While his belief and the reality he faced had conflicted each other, he tried his best to find a way to live without relying much on meat. Even in a wild, what drove Thoreau was anthropocentric thinking that human can control nature. This dilemma in food choice that bothered Thoreau is what Michael Pollan calls the omnivore’s dilemma. He puts it in his same-titled book in this way: “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,

Whether it be because of religion, culture, or personal choice, millions of people worldwide do not eat meat, and the majority of the population, the omnivores, often ridicule these people, the vegetarians, for their choices. This has sadly created a divide between thousands of people, however the cause of this separation is simple. One side, whether it be the omnivores or the vegetarians, feels the need to impose its choices onto the other side. Both sides are at fault here, as the omnivores tell the vegetarians that they cannot get proper nutrients from a plant-based diet, and the vegetarians try to tell the omnivores that they are torturing animals by killing them for food. The omnivores are wrong because, while it does require careful planning, vegetarians can easily get the nutrients they need, and the vegetarians are hypocritical because, as the article will show, farming kills thousands of creatures.