Veganism And Vegetarianism, By Tzachi Zamir

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

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

Vegan or Go Home!”, Sarah Breslaw asserts veganism as the answer to curbing environmental concerns. Breslaw makes a clear argument in her thesis and explains both negative and positive aspects of veganism but ultimately succumbs to logical fallacies, faulty sourcing and evident subjectivity which weaken her claim.

As one can see a person can eat meat and enjoy a healthy life as long as they exercise moderately and stay away from an excessive amount of saturated fats. The problem with the Lyman’s premise B is he overlooks the impossibility of all 6 billion people on this planet transferring to a vegan lifestyle. Only 3% of earths land is suitable for crop production, 10% of that is land based. Roughly 2/3 of the land is not suitable for crop production due to cites, swamps, snow, deserts etc. Of the 35% that can be donated to crop production less than 1/3 can be cultivated to produce products that can be digested by humans, leaving the rest to be covered by shrubs, grass etc. It is for this reality that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) promotes the use by humans of both plants and animals. “Domestic farms are crucial for food and agriculture, providing 30 to 40 percent of the agricultural sector’s global economic value. Around 2 billion-one third the global population-depend at least partly on farm animals for their livelihoods.

Most people have a preference when it comes to food and very few people like every food that if offered to them. Some people believe that eating animals is wrong and prefer become vegetarians. Some people go even further and become vegans who don’t eat any products that come from animals.

To improve their articles support, the writers for Vegan Outreach should rely mainly on logos to back up their claim that animal consumption is morally wrong and that they should switch to a less cruel alternatives to source food. Although the authors do originally provide evidence throughout the text, their argument is poorly constructed. For example, in one case Vegan Outreach used a statistic without indicating from where they attained the statistic “...[b]y avoiding the meat of chickens, turkeys, and pigs, you can prevent the suffering of more than two thousand of these animals during your lifetime!” (11). The initial issue with Vegan Outreach’s document is that it fails to reference their work, the second issue is that it does little to reference the sample statistics of other animals, which makes their application of logos unreliable. In addition, this example statistic is not their

​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.

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

In his 2009 article “Eating Meat,” Jonathan Safran Foer uncovers the cruel and gruesome truth about factory farms and how they violate animal rights. Foer believes changing food habits prevents the sufferings of animals. He explains that factory farmed animals are suffering due to their inhuman living conditions and style of killing. Foer explains that chickens are cramped with twisted legs and cows are skinned or dismembered while still conscious. In addition, Foer clarifies that after making an animal suffer and go through torture, it is just plain wrong to eat it. Foer would often acknowledge his grandmother’s story, emphasizing her famine during the War and how she had refused a piece of meat offered to her. Even though she had been starving for days, she refused the piece of meat.

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.

Veganism is a food lifestyle based on diet of vegetables, grains, seeds, nuts and fruits. People are being vegetarian because they think it is healthier to only eat vegetables without eating meet or chicken, and they think that they will get a perfect body shape, free of diseases. As in vegetarian, where they feed on foods that do not fit into animal flesh, whether from wild or marine animals. They also don’t eat food that comes directly from the animal, such as: egg that’s comes from the hen, milk that comes from cows, goats and honey that comes from bees. In India, Ethiopia and Jamaica there are a lot of vegetarian people, because they don’t have enough food to feed themselves, so they decided to eat vegetable. This paper argues that veganism is a harmful lifestyle for three major reasons.

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.

As different crazes and fads are appearing each day, we have come to expect them to simply fade away as the hype passes. However, veganism has stood the test of time in our fad society and is still increasing in popularity. Originally only thought to be a religious lifestyle, many people from different walks of life are becoming vegans. However, this poses many questions and sparks heated debates, mainly from omnivorous people who believe that veganism is against life’s natural order. Vegans, then, argue against an omnivorous lifestyle by bringing up facts about humans’ biological makeup and how humans are, contrary to popular belief, herbivorous by nature, not omnivorous. While both sides present good arguments to some, the veganism lifestyle contains more benefits and less harmful cons than an omnivorous lifestyle.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main

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.