The Immorality Of Eating Animals . Eating Animals Poses

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.

  The suffering of animals is not important to gourmets what ethical convictions do they evolve that allows them to enjoy and savor flesh-based

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

Jonathan Safran, a vegetarian, states that, in his Juvenalian article “A Case for Eating Dog” the human race should be condemned for eating an animal’s meat, for it is a moral taboo to do so. Safran argues that eating any animal, be it a cow, or a dog, is something to take ignominy in. The author, Jonathan Safran, uses the satirical device of travesty to create a serious, firm atmosphere, which conveys that eating animals is a shameful practice. Safran argues that while, yes, a large number of dogs-and other animals for that matter- are wasted every year, it doesn’t give us permission to eat animals every bit as smart as animals we do eat. It is stated that “pigs are just as smart as dogs”, but we still eat them (Safran PPG 5).

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.

In the last few pages of the document, Singer discusses the differences between humans and animals when it comes to consuming food. While some make the argument that animals eat meat and so should we, Singer states that humans have higher moral reasoning so are able to move pass such base thinking. Moreover, since the way that humans consume meat typically is rather cruel to animals. Much crueler then animals treat each other. Singer discusses the lives of farm animals, who are essentially bred to be slaughtered, given very poor lives, and live in constant fear.

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

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Most humans tend to be in this trouble middle when it comes to their relationship with animals. They are concerned about the cruel ways animals are treated, but still contribute to it by eating animals, keeping them as pets or watching bullfights. They are aware of how unethical these actions are but continue to do it for their personal gain or enjoyment. Some also have complicated reasoning such as thinking it’s acceptable to eat certain types of animals and not others. Typically this type of reasoning varies depending on the region where one lives. For example, most people who live in the United States of America (U.S.A) think it is appalling to eat a dog while it is completely acceptable in places like China. Similarly, it is acceptable to eat beef in the U.S.A, but not in India due to their religious belief of the cow being sacred. These different cultures and religion have resulted in it being acceptable to eat certain animals in some places and unethical to do so in others. To avoid this troubled middle, all animals should be treated equally so that if it is unethical to eat one type of animal it should be unethical to eat all types of animals.

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 “The Psychology of eating Animals,” published in 2014 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastion, and Nick Haslam argues the psychological process of “meat paradox”(104). Loughnan and Haslam earned their degree in Psychological Science from University of Melbourne and Bastian also earned his degree in Psychological Science from University of Queensland(104). Many people have different thought process when eating meat, they explain, “to understand the psychology of eating animals by examining characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior)”(104). In the another study that they cites shows; that vegetarians have moral concerns for animals that are being used

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.

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.

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

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.