Norman Wirzba's Essay 'Why Agrariansim Matters'

The replacement of the idle fallow with crops constituted the Agricultural Revolution. It was important because the new types of crops made allowed farmers to feed their animals more, which led to a greater amount of meat and improved diets. It had the greatest effect in England and the Low Countries.

As a person that has grown most of my own food, without chemicals or engine powered equipment, for the last 15 years and lesser so for many more years I can relate to some degree what it may have been like for a farmer in the 1800’s (I even live in a house built in 1850).

America — a land known for its ideals of freedom and new opportunities, a nation built under the idea that every man and women is created equal. However, the definition of what makes a person an American is entirely different from what it is that makes up America, itself. J.Hector St. John Crevecoeur, author of Letters from an American Farmer (1782), exposes what he believes makes an American. However, when compared to the standards of what makes an American in today’s world, it seems that becoming an American then was much simpler then, than it is today. The definition of an American is always evolving due to the influences of our changing nation. During a simpler time, Crevecoeur defined an American as someone of European

Michael Pollan the author of Omnivore 's Dilemma discusses and asks, “what should we have for dinner?” He attempts to answer one of the pressing questions of sustainability in today 's society, to save money or to save the planet, and how? Pollan talks about how humans are omnivores and we have the choice to eat whatever we want, no matter the health and sustainability implications of our decisions. Pollan discusses three main food chains, industrial (corn), organic, and hunter/gatherer. He analyzes each food chain, learning eating industrial is basically eating corn, and goes into the complex issues

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

1. Railroads- Railroads in each area were often controlled by one company, enabling those railroads to charge what they wanted. Railroads were the only way for many western farmers to get their produce to market and high prices were always charged. Railroads controlled storage, elevators, and warehouses so the prices the farmers paid were very high.

     Farmers were once known for being able to do everything themselves. They grew their own food and sewed their own clothes. People often yearn for the old days and complain about so many people living in cities. Many farmers had to give up their farms and move to the cities, because of something that happened in the late nineteenth century.

Furthermore, the logos used in The Agrarian Standard is not as credible as it could be, but nonetheless effective. Although sources are lacking, Berry presents information in a precise way. Logos is notably abundant in the introduction of the essay on the first page. Examples of information presented

In concision, this controversial topic has many different conceptions in virtue, utilitarian, biblical perspectives. From a virtue ethicist view, Pollan’s recommendation is helping to rethink wisely about our eating habits and how it is making a big impact on the environment and on the global starvation. A utilitarian ethicist will view this issue from the point that by eating too much meat, the global starvation is going to increase and the results won’t be the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and in this case Pollan’s recommendation is the best solution to decrease the global starvation and make more people happy. Christian ethicist will combine virtue and utilitarianism ethics, because it is the whole absolute truth,

Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.

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.

Within the battle of opposing opinions about living a carnivorous lifestyle, there’s the underlying battle of judgment in human nature. We, as humans, have the conscious ability to choose a moral right or wrong. According to Scruton, “it is the residue of religion in us all,” that determines what is moral right and wrong (A carnivore’s Credo 259). This causes the essay to become applicable to every area of life where some moral controversy is present. There is no black and white anymore. The argument is not about what Scruton calls eating versus feeding or whether it's virtuous or vicious. There is a definite gray area. This calls for people to reconsider every action before it is even made. There is no need to “abandon habits” when they can simply be “remoralized” (A Carnivore’s Credo 264). In this example of carnivore vs vegetarian, neither one is more correct than the other. There merely is now an open discussion about what is truly moral.

During the late nineteenth century, the agrarian movement evolved into a political force that energized American farmers to voice their political and economic grievances like never before. Although the movement essentially died after William Jennings Bryan's loss of the 1896 Presidential election, many of the reforms they fought for were eventually passed into law.

Welcome to the age of an agricultural revolution as everyday biotechnology continues to bring innovation to human’s most basic needs – food. Food is essential to any living organism, providing energy for our production and nutrients for our protection. Without this fundamental element, life cannot exist. Our lack to produce our own energy, like plants, causes us to become dependent on others for survival. Humans existence is attributed only to the million years of evolution our food source underwent to sustain our survival. Changing the primary nature of our food source, whether it is plant or animal, directs mankind in a dangerous future if our food dependency is permanently hampered. Welcome to the age of an agricultural devolution

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.