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
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.
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
Hsiao then establishes his argument that even though eating meat may not be necessary, our “nutritional interests” are a valid enough reason to kill animals. The following section argues that sentience is only a relevant consideration in association with sufficient moral standing and that because animals are not part of the human “moral community,” they have no moral standing and therefore, their pain is a “non-moral” welfare interest, trumped by the “moral” welfare interests of humans (Hsiao).
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 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.
Namit Arora in his article On Eating Animals denounces Americans’ everyday obliviousness towards the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. With an accusatory tone Arora reaches out to meat-eating Americans that aren’t aware of the cruelty present in the meat industry. Furthermore, Arora writes to expose the hypocrisy of Americans who claim to be pro-animal despite their ignorance of the malice and the mistreatment of livestock in slaughterhouses. The context of this piece is the media’s reactions to cows escaping their doom and the modern day indifference of society toward the inhumanity of slaughterhouses. With grotesque imagery Arora compels the reader to realize their hypocritical ways by intending to provoke a sense of pity and guilt within them.
Eating animals: is it only question of morality? In the book “Eating Animals” of Jonathan Safran Foer a very significant problem of the contemporary food culture, factory farming and food industry is raised. While Foer focuses mainly on animal’s suffering and rights: “If contributing to the suffering of billions of animals that live miserable lives and (quite often) die in horrific ways isn't motivating, what would be?”(Foer 123), all these problems are intertwined and may be viewed from different angles. I would say that the thinking of Michkiko Kakutani is partly sound. The Jonathan Foer criticizes the contemporary conventional factory farming, food industry and culture and believes it to violate animal rights and the fact of putting animals into unbearable position at the moment of their slaughtering and their lifestyle, in general is beyond his understanding.
However, in the epic poem The Odyssey, food means more than its literal representation, it is also a symbol of temptation. The beginning scenes in the epic poem discuss the importance of food when it is shown that many of Odysseus’s men did not return home from war after giving in to the temptation of a luxurious meal. The text states that “Children and fools, they killed and feasted on the cattle of Lord Helios, the Sun, and he who
Animals lives are just as important and valuable as humans. One website called SIRS Issues Researcher says “Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering” Website evidence also states “If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner” This evidence supports the claim in three ways. One way is that the evidence makes some people picture animals
It should first be noted that this myth is a stereotype that is simply aimed at the generalization of the entire breed and consequently condemning it on the basis of the actions of a few of them (Landau 70). When evaluated on own merit rather than the breed, one can easily find out that a pit bull is truly a good dog that is inherently friendly to humans and other dogs. The argument that pit bulls are aggressive towards humans and other dogs is unfounded (Marrs 2018). It is a pit bull that is purposefully trained to attack people or that has been bred poorly that is aggressive; otherwise, all pit bulls are generally non-aggressive to people and other dogs (Lam
However, animal activists shouldn’t be the only people concerned about this issue. Any carnivorous human taking part in the consumption of these slaughterhouse animals may want to know more about it as well. Animal activists, while presumably solely concerned with the comfort and well being of the animal, have provided a window into the world of slaughterhouses, and have, inadvertently or not, revealed a truth: The inhumane treatment and virtual torturous living environment of animals in slaughterhouses not only hurts the animal, but the humans who eat them as well. While the green fields and pretty red barns on the