The Food Of Meat, And The First Tiered Look Into The Ethics Of Eating Meat Essay

The Rhetorical Analysis of the “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Foer People argue about ethical and health issues of the meat consumption for decades. Many individuals have own stories of how they came to the vegetarianism or its versions. Jonathan Safran Foer is one of them. In the article Against Meat the man describes his personal experience of the meat consumption and factors that made him to abandon this type of meals. Foer also raises an issue about the attitude to the food.

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 Kristof’s “Food for the Soul,” the concept of agricultural industrialization is put into question as Kristof argues that efficiency and profit is not worth the loss of quality and soul. This article may have put a lot of big name meat sellers name’s and quality into question. Though we probably cannot taste a difference in homegrown or industrialized livestock, there is a significant health benefit to chosing homegrown, as we are much less likely to be taking in foreign chemicals or hormones as “factory farms routinely fill animals with antibiotics, the result is superbugs that resist antibiotics” (Kristof para 7). Kristof approaches the reader with very clear statements and allows for understanding and sympathy to the topic at hand.

Compare and Contrast Pollan and Hurst In “An Animal's Place”, by Michael Pollan and “The Omnivore’s Delusion”, by Blake Hurst, animal suffering and modern day farming is being discussed. People should be knowledgeable not only on the treatment of animals but what goes into producing animals. Pollan’s and Hurst’s text both have a strong support on both sides of the argument, which could give the people the knowledge of how meat is being produced.

The first dilemma is observable in the sphere of the American meat industry. The unhygienic conditions of meat production units, and the pathetic conditions of the places where the cattle are kept, both point toward indulgence in unethical practices. From the deontological perspective and from the utilitarian perspective if the meat production scenario, as depicted in the documentary, is considered then a clear picture of unethical practice will come before the eyes of the spectators of the movie. The disgusting condition of the meat industry has contributed to the infamy of the meat industry and its rotten nature. From the deontological perspective it can be said that, it is the duty of an employer to ensure the safety and security of his employees. But Robert Kenner, in the documentary, has shown how the employers in the sphere of American meat industry are indifferent to this basic duty. These employers refrain from being accountable to their employees and to the common public as well. The higher rate of workplace injury in the context of the meat industry is a burning truth and this truth indicates how unethical the approaches of the employers are. From the utilitarian perspective, if judged, it can be seen that, the food industry must be very much cautious about its modes of production and about the quality of its produces. This is primarily because food is consumed by a huge number of consumers

Our nation’s industrial farming has become more than just feeding people; it has become a way for the food industry to make more money as human population continues to grow. Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals, illustrates the effects factory farming has had on animals meant for human consumption. Furthermore, Foer asks many questions to the reader on what will it take for us to change our ways before we say enough is enough. The questions individuals need to be asking themselves are: how do we deal with the problem of factory farming, and what can people do to help solve these issues? Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation, also illustrates the animal abuse that goes unseen within the food industry as well as Bernard Rollin and Robert Desch in their article “Farm Factories”, both demonstrate what is wrong today with factory farming. Foer gives such examples of employees who work in slaughterhouses giving accounts of what goes on in the kill floors, and stories of employees who have witnessed thousands and thousands of cows going through the slaughter process alive (Animals 231). Namit Arora in the article “On Eating Animals”, as well as Michael Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, both address some of the issues that animals face once they hit the kill floor. The food industry has transformed not only how people eat, but also the negative effects our climate endures as a result of factory farming as illustrated by Anna Lappe in “The Climate Crisis at the End

​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.

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

Meat has been a staple food in the diet of mankind since the early ages of civilization. In the article “Is Any Meat Good to Eat?” by Sarah Boesveld, she interviews author Jonathan Safran to share his opinion on eating meat and factory farming. He believes that “...if [people] just ate according to the values they already have, then factory farming would disappear.” Whether or not people realize the sources from which meat in modern day society comes from, they cannot deny the fact that meat is delectable. Sadly, many people who are aware of where their meat comes from will argue that it is unethical to eat meat that is grown purely to satisfy the hunger of people. The ethics of eating meat should not be considered because of the extreme

The meat industry today is not what it was nearly a century ago. While improvements are thought to have been made, an ever changing society has brought upon new problems that have been piled on to the previously existing ones. While these problems are not like those found in The Jungle, they do parallel how by exposing what is going on in the meat industry; new regulations would be the answer to the noted problems. The increased demand for meat has made it a rushed mutated production instead of a means to raise livestock for consumers. Taking into consideration the demand for cheap meat that will be used for in quick and high demanded products such as frozen and fast food, this demand of meat has greatly skyrocketed. Animals whose sole

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?

Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.

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.

The cattle industry produces vast amounts of strain in the environment. It is energy inefficient, pollutes water, occupies many acres of land, and deteriorates the health of the people who abuse its consumption. The government subsidizes this industry. Therefore, the price paid for meat doesn’t reflect the environmental hazards involved in the process. In order to protect our health and the health of the environment we should pay close attention to our food choices and make sure we don’t support industries that degrade it.