Argumentative Essay: The Consumption Of Animals

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.

Humans do not eat other human beings because that would break down our organized society. We stay together, just as other species would, and breed. Morals and ethics are ideas that humans created cognitively. If one considered all animals to be just animals regardless of their intelligence, then the concept of morals and ethics would not exist. Despite the absurdity of meat eating ethics, there are other important reasons for meat in our diet.

According to Scruton, “Eating animals has become a test case for moral theory in Western societies,” and he believes that a moral life is set on three pillars: virtue, duty, value piety. Foer uses fishes and dogs, for example, in Eating Animals: people slam gaffs into fish, but no one in their right mind would do such a thing to a dog. Foer also mentions that fish are out there in the water doing what fish do, and dogs are with us. Dogs are our companions, and with that, we care about the things that are near and dear to us. In, “Consider the Lobster,” Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” Is it a personal choice to do so? PETA, of course, says no. Dick from the Maine Lobster Festival (MLF) argues that lobsters do not have the part of the brain that receives pain, which is a false statement anyhow. Goodrich (1969) says that a human’s life is worth so much more than an animal’s life. No matter how many animals there are, one human life is worth more.

Cohen’s article, A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, addresses why animals have no rights, but does tell of our obligations to them. His primary reason for saying these creatures don’t have rights is because they don’t hold themselves in the moral realm of life (where rights are established). Furthermore, he speaks of a nameless philosopher who has described animals as “moral patients”: this term, as the person describes, meaning “… lacks the ability to

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.

Factors such as where the animal is kept, what it is being fed, if steroids are used or not, and the well being of the animal all must be taken into consideration. Consuming meat that has been pumped with steroids and kept in tight quarters while being raised is far from ethical. The meat also will be worse for human consumption because those are not good things to put in an animal so they are even worse to put in a human body or to feed to kids, who rely more heavily on getting the appropriate nutritional needs because their bodies are still growing. The consumption of meat is ethical for numerous reasons, however the process of how the animal makes it to the table may not be ethical and that decision comes down to the consumer and how he or she chooses the meat that they consume depending on how morally the animal was treated before it was made available for consumer consumption. “Consider the Lobster” by David Wallace highlights all important aspects of lobster consumption. He begins by telling people how sufficient lobster meat is to our bodies, but also brings to his audiences’ attention how it may be unethical and cruel. Although Wallace considers the life of a lobster and other animals, he ends his paper with the statement “the reason it seems extreme to me appears to be that I believe animals are less morally important than human beings” (Wallace 470). Ethically, this mindset is reasonable and is also the way that most people in society feel as well. In “Ethics and the New Genetics”, the Dalai Lama tells his readers the importance of “the need to ensure that we hold compassion as the key motivation for all our endeavors” (Dalai Lama 69). The sad truth is that some people in this world do find pleasure in eating animal meats and products, some even find compassion and pleasure killing these animals. Everyone grows up

As I have clarified earlier, neither the claim that non-human animals have no rights nor the claim that our moral obligations to humans need to be equal to those to non-human animals is cogent enough to conclude that we have no moral obligations to non-human animals. We surely do. A relevant example would be the global species conservation efforts. Over the past fifty years, WWF, one of the world’s largest independent conservation organization, had invested over one billion dollars in more than twelve thousand conservation initiatives and helped conserved a number of species, including elephant, giant panda, polar bear, great apes, etc. Dr. Claude Martin, former Director General of WWF International once said, “our objectives have never been clearer - slow climate change, reduce toxics in the environment, protect our oceans and fresh waters, stop deforestation, and save species." One of the major goals of WWF is to promote the biodiversity of ecosystem and habitats that is vital for the health and livelihoods for all the living organisms on earth. Meanwhile, Dr. Claude Martin’s statement does not show that the motive behind conserving endangered species arises solely out of humans’ moral obligation to non-human animals, but our obligations to these

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

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

But in my opinion, I think animal rights activists are going too far trying to push for an animal bill of rights and trying to encourage other people how to treat their pets. In an articled called “Hooked” written by Victoria Braithwaite, she claims that fish do in fact feel pain and ignoring the creatures suffering and treating them like they have no meaning and they are here for no reason. I disagree with the point that Braithwaite is trying to make, because it is really hard to feel sympathy for just a fish because it's not the end of the world. There are so many fish in the world and how fast they repopulate I don’t think that a fish should be our primary concern as of right now, because it's not the end of the world if we kill the fish for fun or to eat, it just means that we have one less fish in the world. But I do acknowledge her research about this topic and providing facts that essentially show

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

The discretion between animal versus human equality has been a controversial subject for many years. Philosophers and activists have pushed this matter into debate among the general society in our culture. What exactly is moral equality for animals? Some say it is equal rights to animals, and others say it is equal consideration of the animal. To understand the scope of equality based on rights, one must unfold the determination of a right in itself. Carl Cohen argues that animals have no rights, because they do not have the ability to know what a right is, but should never be treated inhumanely (Cohen 339). I will argue that Cohen’s view on animal rights is valid and sound, because animals are of instinct nature and do not perceive in according to human perception. Also, the opposite view would have detrimental effects on our population, economy, and natural habitat. Nevertheless, animals have the ability to feel pain and that aspect, certainly, for the sake of our morality, cannot be ignored.

According to Carol Glaser, in her article “See No Evil” Explains that “People, therefore, deny animal suffering when they choose not to acknowledge or understand it (cognition), are not bothered or disturbed by it (emotion), do not find it to be wrong or an issue or something they should be concerned with (morality), and don't react to put a stop to it (action)” (5). Animal abuse should a very disturbing topic and should also cause people to take an action to put a stop to it. Taking an action would include becoming a vegetarian or vegan, rescuing animals from abusive homes, or even donate money to an animal rescue agency would be taking action. An animal charity is a place where citizens donate money either through the mail or online to a charity of your choice to help animals going through abuse get nursed back to health, or at worse case get put out of misery. Most of the people that deny being involved with animal abuse might not have known, but eating meat would be considered a case of animal abuse. When people buy meat they are really just paying other people to abuse an animal for others consumption. When people are buying meat, they need to acknowledge the fact that it is contributing to animal abuse. Gary L. Francicone in his article “Eating Meat Is Also Animal Abuse” Explains that “ We kill and eat more than fifty-eight billion animals each year here in America, not including fish.

A Judeo-Christian interpretation from the Bible stated that “dominion over animals meant that any degree of exploitation was acceptable has changed for most people to mean that each person has responsibility for animal welfare (Aquinas T., 2006).”

All throughout the world there are arguments about whether it is morally right or morally wrong to eat animals. Throughout this class we have read many articles and talked about the morality behind this argument in lectures. We see people who are strongly for both sides and throughout this paper I will mention why individuals believe what they believe is the right thing to do in this argument.