Analysis Of Vegetarianism

1375 Words6 Pages
Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject Date Morality and Vegetarianism Vegetarianism is a word used to describe the consumption of a diet that does not include animal flesh. Vegetarian, on the other hand, is used to describe a deliberate decision based on personal awareness to refrain from eating flesh foods. The choice to consume meat or not is embedded in profound philosophical reasons. This determination varies widely across history and cultures. This essay analyses the moral argument of animal rights as advanced by vegetarians. The word vegetarian has been a subject of discussion for a long time with criticism levied on its narrow perspective. The term has been expanded to include a variety of eating habits. These include lacto-ovo…show more content…
The traditional view of vegetarianism is challenged by questions such as what animal is morally wrong to eat, what is an animal product and whether it is morally right to eat it. The moral position is not shared among all humans. More interesting, vegans who seem to value animal life seem to have no opinion towards carnivorous animals that frustrate the same right to life of fellow creatures. As such, even though animals by themselves are not moral agents, their feasting on meat may be considered prima facie wrong. The most logical answer to the moral dilemma of animal eating meat is that carnivores, unlike human beings, cannot survive without eating meat. Staying on the same argument of animals that eat other animal products, vegetarians may argue that for example, failure to feed a cat with milk would be denying it the right to eat what it wishes. This perspective is counter-productive in the sense that vegetarians do not want to acknowledge that humans too have a right to eat whatever they desire be it…show more content…
The animal pain argument is disputable. The advancement in scientific technology can create organisms that cannot feel pain through genetic engineering. This poses the question of whether it would still be morally wrong to kill such a creature. The subsequent inquiry would then be on whether it is acceptable to eat meat made through genetic technology. It can also be assumed that injecting the animals with anesthesia before butchering them would remove the moral tag. Vegans would reason that it is still morally unacceptable since slaughtering involves taking the life of the animal. Non-vegans, in addition, argue that ultimately any animal will suffer at some point in its life and as such humans have to prevent animal suffering by killing them painlessly (Martin, 19). This is an admission that animals have a right not to be subjected to pain but have no right to
Open Document