The Controversy Of Eating Animal Products

One of the first changes humans experienced when we started farming was a change in our diet. Hunter-gatherers had a very wide variety in their diet from different nuts, plants and meat. As Jared Diamond

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

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.

Most Americans are aware of global warming, cancer, heart disease and the fact that the earth’s supply of good water is diminishing. In an effort to conserve our planet people drive hybrid cars, recycle, and use low energy light bulbs and appliances, which is great. However, most Americans are unaware and uninformed about how meat effects global warming, our health, and how much of our planet’s water and resources meat production consumes. Meat contributes to global warming, increases risk for cancer, causes heart disease and uses a tremendous amount of resources to produce, therefore people need to be informed about what they are eating through food labeling and Surgeon General warnings, as well as

​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.

In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a

Tracing back history, food has always been traditionally imperative to humans. Food is what we treasure and really derive pleasure eating. It has been part of every culture and tradition because every culture has its delicacies. In some parts of Nigeria, if you eat a meal that is meatless, people tend to consider you as poor and unable to afford meat. In essence, meat is really considered a big deal in some parts of my country. Growing up as a child, I was taught that I needed the “omnivore’s diet” to grow effectively and be healthy but today, I have discovered that I no longer need animals in my diet. America

Eating animals poses two moral questions. Is it wrong to raise and kill animals simply because humans enjoy the fleeting taste of their flesh? Do our differences from these animals justify their slaughter? The response to both of these questions is simple. Never. Many people believe that their superiority over animals is a justification to eat them. Animals have been traditionally defined as slaves and non-rational beings without moral reasoning, but these beliefs have been refuted for centuries.Even if these claims were true, these differences should encourage more, not less, moral consideration since they gather that animals cannot give or withhold their consent or

Food Justice demands that food be produced in a way that is fair and safe for the farm workers and the surrounding environment. For those who feel as though you cannot give up an omnivore’s lifestyle, you are not alone. Here are some tips for ethical eating. Starting with shopping for meat that was produced with either fair trade or livable pay for workers. Next analyzing whether or not the meat you are trying to buy is sustainably produced in consideration of other people on the planet. Lastly, determine the importance of compassionate and ethical treatment of animals. With these three thought processes one can become a better advocate for our planet, the people on it, and the living things that are part of it.

I have a quick announcement about an amazing opportunity to fight for justice! This Wednesday (2/10) Rachel Atcheson from The Humane League will be giving a presentation titled "The Ethics of What We Eat" in the Baird Library from 7:30-8:30pm. This session is not mandatory to attend, but if you have some free time stop by. I hope you guys have a wonderful rest of the night and week!!

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.

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.

Some would not be able to live without eating any animal products in their diets, such as, meat, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, and honey. For vegans, however, this is a normal way of life. Vegans are frequently misunderstood as either people who have eating disorders, or an unnatural passion for animal rights. It is time for people to realize that veganism, a challenging yet rewarding lifestyle, goes way beyond being skinny or caring for animals. In reality, veganism can be extremely advantageous to anyone who adapts it as a way of life and has many different benefits that come along with it.