The Moral Basis Of Vegetarianism Analysis

These people that considered themselves vegetarian and vegan strongly believe that killing animals is unethical because of the pain that the animals have to endure. However, these people who refuse to eat meat are unaware that there are animals being harmed during the process of harvesting crops. For instance, in Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable Miracle,” she describes of how the harvest of crops kills animals as well, both directly and indirectly (Source B). To prevent crops from being destroyed by insects, they are sprayed with pesticides, these toxic gases are harmful to other animals as well such as birds, killing approximately 67 million a year. Likewise, machines used to harvest these crops like the sickle mower harms the environment of small animals such as rabbits and foxes by demolishing their homes, causing a disturbance in their way of life.

I did not understand the solution to the problem of being a “conscientious meat eater.” The authors never really stated or concluded an answer to the problem in the article. In the text it says “For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat humanely raised meat seems like an option.” This argues that only an option to the solution is informed to the reader, and that there is no real solution to the problem at hand. The whole point of the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, is to inform the reader about the issue about meat, but because there is no solution to his argument; it makes his argument less effect as a whole when persuading

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.

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. But in “Eating Animals” the author does not try to look deeper

My health? Or the environment?” Most often than not it boils down to my refusal to accept the systemic cycle of abuse and torture that countless animals must endure with no escape. I chose to reject the status quo and ruminate why I consumed animal products, but I could not find an acceptable answer. Thus, I chose to disregard what those around me believed was the norm and I become a person of my own principle not a follower of another’s.

Down With Animal Testing There are certain things about animal testing that the community doesn’t know. Some people know what happens to those animals and they don’t want to face what happens. The inhumane treatment of animals used for research is well documented. There are many pros and cons considering the use of the animals in medical research. Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down.

In the article, Timothy Hsiao begins with an outline of one school of thought of vegetarians that it is morally wrong to eat meat because of the pain caused in the killing of animals and that eating meat is unessential to survival. 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).

Wild game farmers and hunters are speciesists because they do not consider the interests of the sentient beings they come into contact with; instead, they view them as beasts who are incapable of feeling. In fact, they approach these animals as subordinate to human beings for their inability to converse and reason, however, they fail to notice that like humans, animals have an inherent evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce and, as is evident by their instinct to run whenever they hear a gun shot, they are aware of their need to

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

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

They believe we should only kill or harm an animal for reasons of survival and keeping the circle of life in motion, but today we do way beyond that. Most people have little to no respect for animals or our earth because it simply isn 't important to them and they

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.

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.

What Does it mean to Eat Ethically? When it comes to food everyone has an opinion on what should and what shouldn’t be eaten. Some may believe that eating meat isn’t ethical regardless of what kind of animal it is while others may disagree. What it means to eat ethically is always going to be a debated topic. Is there a right or wrong side? In Blake Hurst, Peter Singer, Jayson Lusk and Amelia Tait, articles they argue whether or not animals should be used for industrial farming; while Singer and Tait share the same opinion that it is incorrect and use logos and ethos to support their views, Hurst and Lusk argue that there is nothing wrong with this practice and use examples and resources to persuade the reader.