Animal Vegetable Miserable Essay

Jonathan Safran, a vegetarian, states that, in his Juvenalian article “A Case for Eating Dog” the human race should be condemned for eating an animal’s meat, for it is a moral taboo to do so. Safran argues that eating any animal, be it a cow, or a dog, is something to take ignominy in. The author, Jonathan Safran, uses the satirical device of travesty to create a serious, firm atmosphere, which conveys that eating animals is a shameful practice. Safran argues that while, yes, a large number of dogs-and other animals for that matter- are wasted every year, it doesn’t give us permission to eat animals every bit as smart as animals we do eat. It is stated that “pigs are just as smart as dogs”, but we still eat them (Safran PPG 5).

Bost’s reason for going back to meat eating was because he found a more ethical and humane way for an animal to be put down, rather then killing them in a packed area. Bost's essay makes its arguments without referring to religion. Yet for many vegetarians and meat-eaters, one's diet and its ethical implications is based on religious law, or one's spirituality. In fact, some of the most ardent defenders of meat-eating

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

In an attempt to strengthen his argument, Steiner quotes writer Isaac Bashevis Singer, who also wishes to end the consumption of animals. In one of his own essays, Singer calls killing animals the “eternal Treblinka,” (196) referencing one of the deadliest Polish extermination camps during WWII. This reference to a place so negative and full of death is unexpected and extreme; is eating animals truly as morally wrong as a concentration camp? Can one compare the killing of animals for food to the genocide of millions of innocent people? This farfetched reference weakens Steiner’s

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

The essay of Gary Steiner, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” advises that a vegan lifestyle is an ethical lifestyle. He is a strict vegan which means no meat, cheese, eggs, or anything that contains animal products and byproducts. Steiner seems to be an animal rights advocator, and his essay pushes his beliefs with the hope that his opinions will gain the attention of people in American. The written responses to Gary Steiner's article, “Ethical Choices in what We Eat” argues and agrees with his pro-vegan argument. Many conflicts in the use of animal products in our lives, but the tone of his essay can sometimes undermine the reader affecting his cause to help eliminate animal slaughter.

He compares eating animals with human welfare He makes an extraordinary ppoint by observing individuals who justify eating animals because they believe humans are superior to them. He claims people who call themselves advocated for human rights purchase just "uncaged" meat. Doesn't killing it refute the solaces that were given to it when it was being raised? Steiner made one strong point that at first strengthened his argument until becoming offended by his claim that anyone who does not live a vegan lifestyle is uncompassionate. He sarcastically states about a Thanksgiving turkey, "All it ever had was a short and miserable life, thanks to us intelligent, compassionate

This essay analyzes the ethical argument for veganism through the lens of philosophy using Utilitarianism defined by John Stuart Mill, and Deontological ethics according to Immanuel Kant. Through the use of these theories, I will justify the moral worth and legitimacy of the animal welfare debate that is often used to promote a cruelty-free and vegan lifestyle by analyzing questions of animal sentience, the worth of an animal’s happiness, and the right humanity supposedly has to the lives of other living creatures. Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics will provide two philosophical insights into the reasoning of a life abstaining from harming animals.

As different crazes and fads are appearing each day, we have come to expect them to simply fade away as the hype passes. However, veganism has stood the test of time in our fad society and is still increasing in popularity. Originally only thought to be a religious lifestyle, many people from different walks of life are becoming vegans. However, this poses many questions and sparks heated debates, mainly from omnivorous people who believe that veganism is against life’s natural order. Vegans, then, argue against an omnivorous lifestyle by bringing up facts about humans’ biological makeup and how humans are, contrary to popular belief, herbivorous by nature, not omnivorous. While both sides present good arguments to some, the veganism lifestyle contains more benefits and less harmful cons than an omnivorous lifestyle.

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

In “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner argues against the eating, or using, of animals and animal products. Steiner is the author of multiple books on topics similar to this, and a dedicated vegan of fifteen years at the time of this article. The author begins with an allusion to the recent outcries for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. However, he points out, no one seems to be concerned about the animals being slaughtered, merely that they were not abused beforehand. Steiner then goes on to explain the two main

There is more than just the ideology behind a vegan diet, it is the vegan lifestyle that can outweigh any other lifestyle. Incorporating the benefits with knowing that it can change the world is eye-opening. There are many questions non-vegans have, for instance: how does the health of the animals affect the health of the planet and humans? By adopting a vegan lifestyle, Americans would prevent the unethical and terrible welfare of livestock animals, stop the rise of climate change, and end food insecurity while providing underdeveloped nations with basic nourishment, despite the opposing side’s disagreement with these reasons and stance.

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

When asked what being vegetarian meant to me in the past, my thoughts depicted leaf eating hippies protesting for PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals). Over the years I’ve become more open minded, and increased my education on the definition of a true vegetarian. A vegetarian is defined as an individual who excludes meat and sometimes other animal products from their everyday diet. The reasons for becoming vegetarian vary. Reasons may be health, moral, or environmentally related. Some may choose to adopt the diet later in life; others may be born into it and carry it on throughout their lifetime. I consider my own diet semi- or flexitarian, meaning I choose to limit my meat consumption to four or less times a week. My decision is based on the healthier eating aspect and my own care for animals. The reason I chose this topic was to increase my knowledge of the healthy lifestyle I call my own, and hopefully influence others to limit their meat consumption as well. I believe a more plant-based diet would benefit everyone’s well-being, generally promote a healthier lifestyle, and reduce the amount of animals being raised and slaughtered. Vegetarianism is not a newly developed concept; the plant-based way of eating has been around a very long time.