Why We Should Eat Pork

In his article "Vegetarianism and the Other Weight Problem", James Rachels argues that meat eating is immoral and it is a moral duty to be vegetarian. In order to discuss the problems and come up with his conclusions, Rachels considers two arguments for vegetarianism.

None of the animals seemed to quite understand what the two pigs seemed to talk about they weren't informed properly. If the animals couldn't make informed choices, then they couldn't make good choices. Some animals had the proper education and learned to read and write. These same animals had such a lack of intelligence that they couldn't figure out what the pigs were talking about.

People tend to have various eating habits, but why do people consider eating dogs different from eating other animal meats? An American novelist Jonathan Safran Foer in his article called “Let Them Eat Dogs” argues that people should eat dog meat if they eat pigs, cows, and chickens as they have same capacities, they are all good companions and eating dogs is not taboo everywhere. Even though the way he defends this point is quite reasonable, in this essay I will give reasons why this might not always be the case. This paper will focus on a cultural taboo aspect of Foer’s argument which states that people should eat dogs because eating dogs is not taboo everywhere and it does not harm people in any way. However, people do not necessarily have to eat dog meat since based on our cultural practices, eating dogs is not the same as eating other animal, even though Foer argues that.

Food dominates the lives of people. It is used as comfort and fuel. But the controversy is, what should people consume? Burkhard Bilger 's piece, Nature 's Spoils, explores the abnormal way of eating, which is the fermentation of food. It is usually a safe practice, and also produces vitamins in the making. The Omnivore 's Dilemma by Michael Pollan expresses the problem of how humans select food. In How Do We Choose What to Eat? by Susan Bowerman she points out the influences on people’s life that affects their eating habits. By using Bowerman’s article as the keystone, Nature’s Spoils and The Omnivore’s Dilemma can be compared and contrasted. Since the food that people consume daily can affect them in the future, it must be chosen carefully.

The third pig displays the trait of intelligence since the beginning of the story. For instance, he decided to build his house out of bricks and the wolf was unable to blow his house down. The decision to build a home out of bricks appears to be common sense. Bricks not only provide a stable frame to a house, but also allows it to remain sturdy in the event that strong winds come about. After the realization that he could not blow down the house, the wolf invites the third pig to a field of turnips at six o'clock. The pig leaves an hour earlier, and repeats this tactic when invited to the apple tree and fair. The third pig outsmarts the wolf with his intellect by agreeing to go with him to multiple locations with the intention of collecting

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.

The Rhetorical Analysis of the “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Foer People argue about ethical and health issues of the meat consumption for decades. Many individuals have own stories of how they came to the vegetarianism or its versions. Jonathan Safran Foer is one of them. In the article Against Meat the man describes his personal experience of the meat consumption and factors that made him to abandon this type of meals. Foer also raises an issue about the attitude to the food.

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.

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.

Rifkin gives great evidence, but one that stood out to me the most was how pigs experience depression if not given enough play time or affection. It reminds me of how humans become depressed if isolated from certain aspects in their life. It also baffled me when Rifkin mentioned how Koko, a 300 pound gorilla scored a 70-95 on a human IQ test. The human average of an IQ test is 90-109. Some people argue that animals mimic action, but how could you mimic an IQ test and receive a good score? Another piece of evidence

​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.

Issues such as global warming, sustainable food, and even hunger are resolved. We are provided with a recipe for stewed dog from the Philippines but then are reminded of the problems with factory farmed meat. It is concluded that food should be considered carefully and produced mindfully.

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.

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.

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.