Peter Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

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.

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument.

Calcium is a mineral that builds and maintains strong bones and teeth, Calcium also helps regulate the blood, heart, muscles, and nerves. Meat eaters may need more calcium than vegetarians because animal protein tends to block the absorption of calcium. Calcium-rich foods that are acceptable for vegetarians include broccoli, dark leafy greens, almonds, brazil nuts, hazel nuts, legumes, and tofu processed with

Ever since the beginning of time, meat has been a staple of the human diet. People have many reasons why they chose not to consume meat. One of the most common reasons some people chose not to eat meat is because they believe that it is unethical. There are many processes required in order to produce meat for conception, and these processes have become widely known to the public and cause a great deal of controversy. Animals are often tortured, genetically modified, and live in squalid conditions before they become the meat we put on our dinner tables. In Michael Pollan’s book, An Omnivore’s Dilemma, we are focused on many different views of eating meat and other foods that are products of animals. The majority of those who chose to consume

Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.

dinner when it was still an animal? He argues about the use and abuse of animals raised for

In this article “Against Meat” Jonathan Safran Foer describes his personal experience with struggling whether he eats meat or not and what he went through to become a vegetarian, his main reason was he didn’t want animals to suffer. Foer had a lot of influence in his life, starting with his grandmother who he considered her as a role model he loved her passion with food, although she had one recipe

Imagine piercing a tender piece of lobster with a fork, drenching the piece in the golden melted butter, and the flavors that erupt in your mouth when a piece of lobster is eaten. It may taste delicious to some; conversely, some people find the cooking process to be too unbearable to even consume lobster. In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace argues that people should not consume lobster on account of the animal’s suffering during the preparation and cooking processes. He makes his argument by invoking the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to fulfill the needs and wants of people. Also taking a stand on whether or not to eat meat, Jay Bost also invokes a principle in his essay, “Sometimes It’s More Ethical to Eat Mean Than Vegetables,” that was published in the New York Times. He invokes the principle that eating meat is ethical because it preserves the natural systems that exist in the environment. While David Wallace invokes the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to satisfy our needs and wants, Jay Bost arouses the principle to preserve the environment; however, they both overlook that core values that influence a person’s principle vary from person to person, and not everyone is going to be persuaded to agree with their

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

In this passage by Royal Dixon, the author incorporated various persuasive techniques to build an extremely well-crafted essay, which encourages the readers’ respect toward the animals. By emphasizing the common aspects of the animals and the human, the author attempted to convey his points that animals deserves more respect. His logic and persuasiveness was strengthened through rhetorical question, criticism of the limitation of science, and emphasis on the interconnection between humans and animals. The author is mindfully persuasive from the very beginning starting off his essay by rhetorical questions. His intentional manipulation of structure of placing the rhetorical questions directly after the commonly held concept of “we cannot treat men He claims that the science is imperfect due to its defect of leaving out feelings. The author first discusses the descriptions of human in the scientific approach that humans are “merely a machine to be explained in terms of neurons and nervous impulses, heredity and environments and reactions to outside stimuli”. Consequently, however, he incorporated rhetorical question, “who is there who does not believe that there is more to man that that?”, provoking the empathy that humans are indeed much more valuable beings that such simplistic explanation. He attempts use this created empathy and apply this concept to the animals as well. This encouraged the readers to approach this matter not with the heads, but with hearts, changing the perception of animals not as a mere inferior creature, but as a being of intellect and feelings as humans. Although the author revealed his unsatisfaction toward mechanistic interpretation, he approaches his argument in a scientific way to counter his audience, who may still disagree with him based on the scientific fact of superiority in intelligent of humans over the animals.

Eating is one of the most important process of people’s daily lives. Ingesting the food that provide nutrition and energy to allow people’s growth. Without eating, none of the animals and other omnivores will be able to survive. Humans consume most of other living things on earth. As humans become more civilized, many starts to think about moral consequences of food choices for humans themselves and for other animals or perceive that eating some specific kinds of food is morally and naturally incorrect. Although the organs within humans’ bodies are serve to break down animals and plant and to circulate and pass the nutrition throughout the bodies, more people think ethics of eating are important due to virtues, moral, and conscience. There are numerous perspectives to talk about

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

In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables.

Imagine a day in the life of a common farm animal. Far from the peaceful grazing life one would envision, the livestock of today endure horrific conditions - from suffering painful diseases to being separated from their mothers at too young of an age. Not only are these conditions harmful to the animals, the food produced by them is unnecessary to humanity’s well-being and can even be damaging to society’s overall health. Since the definition of ethics is having well-founded standards of right and wrong, this process of producing meat for our consumption is unethical.

“In 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated that Americans ate an average of 54.3 pounds of beef, 92.1 pounds of chicken, and 50.4 pounds of pork, per person, per year” (Vegetarianism). Food production counts for only one of the many injustices animals face daily. Although they have been proven emotionally intelligent, mankind views these entities as subservient and continue to harm them. People around the world have created organizations that work to ameliorate the treatment of animals. As the animal rights movement nobly fights to improve the conditions of these living creatures, daily human activities and the moral values of some prolong the acceptance of animal equality.