Paul Schwennsen's The Ethics Of Eating Meat

In Chapter 17 (The Ethics of Eating Animals), Pollan is considering the moral side to the slaughterhouses while eating a rib-eye steak. While at dinner, Pollan begins to read Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation, a book about the morals and ethics of eating animals. Pollan focuses on what Singer says, “Eating meat has become morally problematic.” This to Pollan stood out because of his feelings towards the subject. Pollan felt that you do feel morally wrong for how animals are mass produced but at the same time you don’t stop yourself from consuming

Summary-Response Paper #3 “In Defense of Eating Meat” is an article written by Timothy Hsiao from the Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, published by Springer Netherlands. Timothy Hsiao received his master’s degree in philosophy from Florida State University and currently teaches at Florida Southwestern State College. The article provides a thorough argument for the morality of meat eating.

The article “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater,” written by Sunaura Taylor and Alexander Taylor, looked like a very convincing argument. “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious meat eater” discusses that processed meat is bad for the world, and how it affects us and our surrounding environments in a negative outcome. The one thing I enjoyed reading from this article was the supportive use of evidence through facts to support the author’s thesis statement. However I would argue that the authors, when writing this, didn’t do a thorough job on keeping the subject professional, detailed, unbiased, and citing the sources for their information.

The natural life cycle depicts how animals and humans consume other species in order to survive. However, the issue about whether or not the consumption of meat is ethical has risen. Based on one’s belief and upbring, one may believe that eating meat is unethical while others chose to live a life where they eat meat based on their reference. Although, ultimately people have the decision to choose if they want to include meat in their diets, consuming meat is ethical as long as one is aware of what they eat and where these livestock are coming from. Having awareness of what one eats is important, making one conscious on where it originates and being grateful for the hard work it took in order to produce it.

Moreover, she gives the idea of a dog in the US as well as in Britain, the dog is sacred “a man’s best friend”, but in other countries dogs are eaten, “What is considered food by one person or culture is considered inedible to another, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison,” as the old adage succinctly states.” (Delaney) Nevertheless, the section that hit me the most from the chapter would have to be the section titled, Of Meat and Men, which talked about what eating meat signifies, “People with power have always eaten meat” (Adams 1991: 26), and that implies only class distinctions, but also gender.” (Delaney) In addition, Of Meat and Men, goes on to talk about how soldiers in WWII ate two-and-a-half times as much meat as the average American citizen, and talks about how patriarchal societies, have men eat before anyone else is served. This short section describes the cultural beliefs of meat being a sacred food that is to be consumed by men, and makes women a symbol of meat to men, similar to what we see in Wolf’s

In the essay “Let Them Eat Dog”, Foer did just that to strengthen his point of view that dogs are really just another ordinary, to use his words “remarkably unremarkable…”(Foer) animals out in the wild. He quoted “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” from the famous allegorical novella – “Animal Farm” by George Orwell (Foer), which gives the reader a glance of inequality on how different animals are treated differently. Foer utilizing the quote to encourage the audience to think about what is it that makes it acceptable for the public to consume beef, pork, even horse meat but it is a taboo to eat dog. He makes it clear that if we truly treat all animals equally regardless of their kind, eating dogs should not be a taboo; it should be more acceptable and equalized just like the

She gives the idea of a dog in US as well as in Britain the dog is a sacred “a man’s best friend”, but in other countries dogs are eaten, “What is considered food by one person or culture is considered inedible to another, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison,” as the old adage succinctly states.” (Delaney) But the section that struck me the most from the chapter would have to be the section titled, Of Meat and Men, which talked about what eating meat symbioses, “People with power have always eaten meat” (Adams 1991: 26), and that implies only class distinctions but also gender.” (Delaney) This section goes on to talk about how soldiers in WWII ate two-and-a-half times as much meat as the average citizen, and talks about how patriarchal societies, have men eat before anyone else is served. This short section describes the cultural beliefs of meat being a manly food that is to be consumed by men first in a way relates to The Beauty Myth presented by

You could save an animal from drowning, but you could save a person from drowning too; the choice is difficult. You could protest for animals to have rights and not be tortured at slaughterhouses and still eat them from factories that do things like kill them in an abusive way. Animal rights, animals should have some rights with some limitations. I have issues involving this topic about animal rights because i have mixed emotions about how we can experiment and torture animals but still have them as pets. In articles by Jeff McMahan, “Eat Animals The Nice Way”, and by Maureen Nandi Mitra, “Animals Are Persons, too”, they talk from two different positions where we should eat animals and another where we shouldn’t experiment on them and let them be.

While returning to his first arguments about how critics often argue that hunting is immoral because it requires intentionally inflicting harm on innocent creatures. Even people who are not comfortable should acknowledge that many animals have the capacity to suffer. If it is wrong to inflict unwanted pain or death on an animal, then it is wrong to hunt. Today it is hard to argue that human hunting is strictly necessary in the same way that hunting is necessary for animals. The objection from necessary harm holds that hunting is morally permissible only if it is necessary for the hunter’s survival.

On a differing take on the solution, “Escape from the Western Diet” by Michael Pollan provides the complete change of our diet and way of life based around cooking and eating meals. however creates a more powerful and logical argument against the “Western Diet” in his article, He uses a combination of his credibility from his publications on health and foods, evidence against the practices of the medical community, along with his solution to the issue of obesity to create an article that draws in audience’s emotions and rationale. Pollan’s strongest points in his article was the use of credibility and his ability to bring logic and reason to most of his points against medical society and the publics solution to obesity. Pollan comes in with a stronger

The topic of factory processed meats is a very controversial topic. Is eating meat wrong? No, I have never thought eating meat was wrong; I just now think that we need to be more informed on where the meat we are consuming is coming from. It is our responsibility to be aware of what companies are treating their animals in a morally correct way and which companies are not so that we are knowledgeable when we go shopping at the grocery

The author of this article is Mark Bittman. This article is about American’s meat consumption and the health and environmental problems that come with it. Mark’s argument is that Americans should cut down on meat consumption, because it causes environmental problems, health problems and a lower standard on animal welfare. The first point Mark presents is that meat consumption causes environmental problems.

However, ethics do play a role, in that morals is one of the elements that separates us from other animals. I believe that if you kill an animal or plant for food, you should put a majority of it to use in some way. I also believe animals and plants that are grown as a source of food should have as little interaction with humans as possible. We should not eat animals and plants if we are endangering their existence by eating them. As long as animal or plant does not fall into one of these exceptions, then I believe it is ethically permissible to eat

When people eat meat, have they ever stopped to consider what it is that they are eating? Or what type of life the animal they're eating went through? The article, “An Animal’s Place,” by Michael Pollan, explains the moral issue of whether or not it's correct to consume meat. Blake Hurst’s “The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals” presents himself against critics who naysay industrial farming and criticize the ways animals are treated there. After close examination of both articles, the reader will be able to determine what type of farming is more logical.

In Norcross conclusion was don’t eat factory farm animal due to the way they were raised, not saying that we cannot meat but to mainly only open range growing animals. He uses argument by analogy as A has probably P, B is like A, therefore, B has probably P. This argument is A story of Fred in the situation of the puppies, B is a situation of animals raised in factory farms, P is that immortality of Perpetuating the situation. We covered the story of Fred and the puppies we said no that is wrong, even with the harvest cocoamones, in this discussion, one of the company dated then it must be morally right. Even if it enhances a gustatory experience.