Beyond Meat: Why The Vegetarian Argument Is Not Enough

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.

1. Thesis Statement: A Hull House, one of the first social settlements in the history of the USA. It is popular for many reasons such as founded by one of the first and popular American Social Reformers Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr, Social service agency, fought for women freedom and peace throughout the world. 2. In my paper, I am going to explain struggle and successful work of American Social Reformers Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr after the settlement of Hull House 1990.

Morally, one may feel obligated to exercise Vegetarianism due to the inhumane treatment of animals throughout the farming process. The issue is that roughly ten billion animals are raised for United States food consumption alone. Animals such as cows, fish, chickens, pigs, and turkeys are subjected to

​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.

In the Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer, expert in Applied Philosophy and Bioethics, addresses controversy head-on by unraveling public misconception about meat consumption, bringing critical attention to how the animals are treated before they are killed, as conscious beings that share the planet with us. He points to the grocery store and the meat aisle where animal meats are purchased that give imagery of spacious ranches and animals grazing on grass peacefully in lush pastures. In fact, this is not the case at all. The lives the animals lead prior to being butchered are brutal, tortured existences, of unimaginable grief, that no living being capable of conscious thought on any level, great or small, should ever endure. Singer illustrates, that meat manufacturers don’t want the public to know this is the case, spending more than 11 billion dollars per year in deceptive advertisement, to convince the public otherwise, obscuring the horrible truth. This selfish, greedy advertising leads Americans to follow the Standard American Diet (SAD), characterized by high consumption of animal-based products, like meat, eggs, and dairy, high in fat and excess protein, consumed in larger than needed portions, more often than needed, paving the way to heart disease, high blood pressure, low energy, and unhealthy living, while meat producers rake in revenue. Singer asks his audience to reconsider the foods they eat, providing valuable insight into why they eat these foods, and

Animals, in affluent countries, are needlessly suffering due to human’s gluttonous desire to consume meat. This essay supports the argument that human beings, living in relatively affluent countries, are morally obligated to refrain from purchasing as well as consuming factory-farmed meat. A reduction in purchasing and consuming factory-farmed meat would diminish unnecessary animal suffering.

Over fifty-six billion animals are slaughtered yearly for consumption, but because we are conditioned from a young age to view animals as resources, we neglect that they are passionate and intelligent living beings. Cows want to enjoy their lives, pigs want to enjoy their lives, and many other farm animals want to enjoy their lives but instead are abused and confined in small cages. Ironically, though, when someone does likewise to a cat or dog, they’re prosecuted. The sole solution to these inhumane acts is Veganism. Veganism is the ideal diet because plant-based foods are plentiful, and it recognizes the unethical treatment of animals.

Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the

Timothy Perrine Siddharth Kharbanda 11/14/2014 Singers Utilitarian Case for Vegetarianism SECTION-I (EXPLANATION OF THE ARGUMENT) In this essay, I will be considering Peter Singer’s Utilitarian Argument/Theory for Vegetarianism. For Singer ‘Utilitarian’ word means “The morally right act whose consequences maximize the total balance of pleasure (interest satisfaction) minus pain (interest frustration) when considering all beings affected” Singer explains that the suffering of livestock animals is a real and great evil and directs individuals to become vegetarian (or vegan if they can) on the grounds that this will undermine the economics of industrial farming and thereby reduce the amount of animal suffering in the world.

According to Singer, we should extend the basic principle of equality to other species, instead of perceiving them as things at our disposal to satisfy our needs and interests. The author points out that we cannot defend our use of animals, considering that we can survive without meat, and eat directly products with which we feed them. Also, it is increasingly popular among consumers the dissent for the way in which the mass production treats animals by reducing the issue to a better treatment while they wait to be killed and taken to our tables. Furthermore, Singer resorts to a famous objection of Benjamin Franklin, who was vegetarian for a while and to justify his desire to eat fish said to himself, “Well, if you eat one another, I don’t

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

Gary steiner is a professor of philosophy at Bucknell university who studies our relationship with nonhuman animals. He searches for moral high ground to claim in the swamp of animal treatment ethics by claiming that killing an animal is equivalent to killing a human. Accordingly, he has forsworn the use of all animal products in his life. He puts forth several reason for his belief and why nearly everyone continues to slaughter animals. Over the course of his article, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, he seems to struggle to understand how anyone could continue to use animal products. Steiner’s bid to take the moral high ground sparked some controversy, however. “The Ethical Choices in What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner” is a collection

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.

As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention