The book provided more distressing news of terrible practices in this industry taught to the workers so that more meat can be distributed for profit. “He wrote that workers would process dead, injured, and diseased animals after regular hours when no meat inspectors were around” (Constitutional Rights Foundation). The industry provides more meat for their customers purely for profit. This causes the industry to be influenced to sell its meat, no matter the condition it is in. The disgusting context of the conditions America’s meat was put through was brought to light, thanks to “The Jungle” and the customers of these businesses were
This short story explains and questions how people find eating animals morally acceptable. Steiner 's short story explains that whenever people think these animals are being treated respectfully they are being ignorant to the fact of how these animals are truly treated; Steiner brings up the fact of how an animals typical horrid life is and how it transitions from its horrid life to being killed by a butcher in a matter of seconds. Moreover, Steiner also adheres to the topic of how unacceptable, it is to kill these animals just for human consumption. Steiner 's purpose in writing this short story is to display to us the fact that eating any animal is not only wrong, but it is just downright unacceptable as it is mass murder of these innocent animals. Finally, Steiner tries to define at his best, what a strict vegan truly
Points are made about the meat industry being the number one cause of global warming and how they’ve aided in the development and spread of diseases such as swine and avian flues. This then leads to his statement that many of these animals involved in factory farming endure extreme levels of abuse and cruelty, and that most Americans would be baffled at the sight of such acts towards
Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure.
Following this, he makes fact of how it lowers the population, makes recipes using the child meat. Above all, the thing that make the reader most unpleasant is the fact that he said that this cannibalistic child meat tastes good and can prove to be healthy for you. As could be seen there’s a strong difference between these essays, they had the same method but in "A Modest Proposal" this method is indirect and social, whereas "Shooting an Elephant" is also indirect but more to the individual rather than the
Rhetorical Analysis “Down on the factory farm” The last thing that comes to our mind when we order a piece of steak at a restaurant is how that animal we are about to eat was being treated while they were alive. According to author Peter Singer’s article "Down on the factory farm” he questions what happened to your dinner when it was still an animal? He argues about the use and abuse of animals raised for our consumption. In Singer’s article he states personal facts and convincing statistics to raise a legitimate argument.
Norcross claims that these two situations are comparable and that both are morally wrong. Some people might say that chocolate is not necessary to sustain human life whereas Norcross says that meat is not critical either. Vegans can survive without meat quite easily. Another objection to his argument is that one person will not have an effect on the production of meat.
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters.
Animal rights and livestock farming Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
In my synthesis essay, the three selected readings, “Equality for Animals” by Peter Singer, “You Can’t Run away on Harvest Day” by Barbara Kingsolver, and “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” by Gary Steiner, will answer the following question; What does it mean to eat ethically? What moral principles should guide our food choices and ways of eating? Between these three essays, they all made emphasis on how ethical eating is defined as sourcing food and eating it in ways that will not cause damage or injuries, neither physically nor mentally, to the food or the eater. Recently, people have expressed interest in where the meat and dairy they are consuming comes from and how it was raised.
There are many reasons why people choose not to eat meat. Studies indicate how animals are mistreated. Animals’ are known to carry diseases but are more seen as impure for they are injected with steroids, drugs and hormones in order to produce larger quantities of meat which not only has a negative effect on the animal but can lead to cancer in humans. Research has claimed that
The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as