The, Pigs And People, By Alastair Norcross

The suffering of animals who are raised and slaughtered for food is not justified, since it is not necessary for us to eat animals to get the nutrition we need. We treat animals cruelly simply just to serve our trivial enjoyment of taste. In addition, Rachels asserts that it is impossible to treat the animals decently yet still produce a sufficient amount of meat. According to him, the humane production of millions of pounds of meat would be so costly that it would force most of us to become vegetarians, as most of us would not have the resources to be able to afford much meat. In response to the question that: “if meat could be produced humanely, without mistreating the animals prior to eating them painlessly, would there be anything wrong with it?” (Rachels 372), he argues that human being the subjects of biographical and not merely biological lives is what qualifies humans for rights; however, the animals with which we are most familiar are subjects of biographical lives and if we have the right to life on the basis of having a life, then those animals have rights to life as well. Thus, even if the farming practices are completely humane, killing the animals is still immoral. There are millions of vegetarians already, there is already less cruelty than there would be otherwise, so little effect does not equate none. He uses the analogy of slavery to

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.

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.

Alastair Norcross’s essay “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” explores the issue of animal rights. The essay explores a scenario which prompts a compelling argument against factory-raised animals and how the meat we consume on a daily bases comes at a sharp price. In addition, several counterarguments are presented throughout the essay.

​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 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.

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

Norcross is heavily against the consumption of factory produced meat for the farm animals are being abused and our treated like they have no moral status. No one likes to see to a puppy or a kitten in pain. In Norcross’s “Fred’s Basement” story, a man tortures puppies so he can abstract a hormone that can restore his lost beloved taste of chocolate (293). The man, Fred, argues that his happiness and needs as a human outweighs the fact that he is hurting a puppy. Norcross relates this situation to what is happening today with farm animals.

Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy.

¨The Pigman” by Paul Zindel is an interesting, mature but good story that most 13 year olds should read.

Animals, like humans, experience both pleasure and pain. To deny this would be like denying they breath the same air that we do. Yet every day animals are being murdered inhumanly and violently at slaughterhouses throughout the country. Factory Farming has become the dominant method of raising meat in America. It is not only cruel and inhumane, but it is also environmentally destructive, and has been linked to spreading illness and disease. We are all moral managers in our own right, therefore have a moral obligation to do something to reduce the impact do make not for today, but for the tomorrows that come. However, we do not; in fact, we continue this vicious cycle of pain and suffering. We drive a certain pleasure from eating this meat. How can we justify these actions? Do animals not have a right to freedom? Do they not deserve equal consideration? Animals have the right to behave naturally during their limited lifetime, yet we deny them the simplest form of life and freedom. By defining their freedom we are denying it; freedom defined is freedom defined.

The issue of raising domesticated animals for human advantage raises the issue of the relationship between people and creatures, as far as the status of creatures and commitments of individuals. Creature welfare is the perspective that creatures under human consideration ought to be dealt with so as to not endure pointlessly. For the most part, however, the creature welfare point of view depends on an understanding of investigative examination on cultivating practices. By differentiation, every living creature's common sense entitlement is the perspective that utilizing creatures for human advantage is, by its tendency, by and large abuse, paying little mind to the cultivating practices utilized. Every living creature's common sense entitlement activists would for the most part be veggie lover or lacto-vegetarian, while it is steady with the creature welfare viewpoint to eat meat, contingent upon generation

“Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” written by Gary Steiner, a philosophy professor at Bucknell University is all about one key argument, “we should re-evaluate the ideas we have inherited from Western philosophy that human animals are morally superior to nonhuman animals.” Steiner does his best to open the eyes of the reader to how he believes that using animals for everything from steak to toothpaste is inhumane and crazy. In this essay I will argue Steiner’s ideas using the response letters that were sent to Steiner as well as my own personal views on the topic. Unlike Steiner, I believe that just because humans are mentally superior to every other animal on the planet, that doesn’t mean that we have to supress our primal instincts in oreder to feel better about ourselves. I believe predation is natural and that god gave us a stomach capable of processing meat and vegetation because that is what we need to live a full and healthy life, and i believe that if god considered murder of animals immoral he wouldnt have put so many predators on the planet.

Animal welfare has been a very controversial issue within our society, whether it would the habitat destruction of California gnatcatchers in southern California to the elephants of sub-Saharan Africa being hunted for their tusks. Moreover, there has been one topic that has been discussed and hotly debated, which is the animal welfare within farms and the conditions that they live in, specifically pigs, calves, and pigs. Environmental ethics is a discipline within philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral standing of the environment and its non-human factors. Furthermore, it takes a biocentric approach because it takes into consideration the fact that all animals are sentient creatures

The relationship between humans and animals has greatly evolved within the past 12,000 years. With this being said, the treatment of animals has as well, leading to different approaches we as humans take when it comes to the use or treatment of animals. Sentientist approaches to ethics are divided into two different types: animal welfare and animal rights views. The “animal rights” approach refers to views that credit individual moral rights to animals. Animal rights advocates are radicals who seek to abolish certain practices that involve the use of animals. These advocates are “driven by emotional attachments to animals rather than reason and are poorly informed about the nature of