Meat-eaters unethically use resources by: killing animals, causing pollution and deforestation, and putting themselves at risk for high cholesterol, cancer, and obesity. We all know that one person amongst our friends or family that has a heart for animals and refuses the thought of eating a poor furry friend. Others believe that animals were put here for a reason to be eaten and used as a resource, but what most people don't know is how badly animals are mistreated in factories and in slaughterhouses.
So people have become accustom to eating beef which is something that is dangerously harming our planet. Even though it is our fault for opting to eat beef, not enough people have been educated to the harms of it. The government should be worried about the future of this planet and not just about a bunch of angry meat lovers. Unfortunately, the high demand and shortcuts made living conditions for the animal unsuitable. The meat produced today is much different than it was then.
Most meat now are filled with hormones to raise them plumper. Animal rights and health issues is a enormous problem in the meat industry. We may mindlessly eat meat, but have we ever gave a thought where it came from or how it was treated when it was still alive? 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 treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
Treatment of animals Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. With numbers like this we cannot afford to kill so many living beings.
Other people may think that not all nutrients are supplied in a regular vegetarian diet. They may think that not enough protein is supplied in a vegetarian diet. Eating meat is natural," some say. Appealing to nature as a justification for ethical belief is a fallacy, and it has been used historically to justify every conservative power structure. Other animals, with no alternative sustenance, having no language and being isolated in themselves, do not seem to be appropriate role models for our ethical lives.
We are animals that have evolved to recognize other beings' subjectivity, to experience empathy, and who have advanced beyond the necessity of violence to supply ourselves with food. We, uniquely, choose what we eat. Veganism versus vegetarianism is about minimizing suffering. It is impossible to produce eggs and milk without vast amounts of killing.
Veganism is about nonviolence. Veganism is more broadly sustainable, less economically divisive and less cruel than eating local meat and other animal products. There is no truly sustainable and humane way to feed all Americans even a fraction of the amount of animal products they currently consume. An acre of land used for grass-fed beef could feed 10 times as many people if used for crops.
Veganism recognizes that compassion is not a limited resource. Veganism is not an asceticism. It is not a form of self-denial. Vegans do not claim to be ethically perfect. Agriculture is, and always will be, a messy business -- there will most likely always be some level of exploitation and misguided or inefficient methods.
Perhaps, as the cynical jibe goes, even the plants feel pain. That is not an argument for the continued exploitation of animals, who demonstrate clear analogs to the states which in humans recognize as indicating suffering. Vegans actively try to stop as much known suffering as possible. Veganism is humanitarian. Becoming vegan is good for the planet and for hungry people around the globe. It is perhaps the only practicable solution to the global food crisis.
It does not indicate a preference for animals over people. It is egalitarian as it does not create a class system of food access. However, if one really examines the issues and thinks beyond their taste buds, it has to be agreed that animal products are dangerous for the planet and always cause unnecessary suffering.
What is radical is kindness and nonviolence. We hope most people would agree that these are certainly worthy things to work toward. The past year has been the most arduous of our lives.
The Covid pandemic continues to be catastrophic not only to our health - mental and physical - but also to the stability of millions of people. We need your support in this difficult time. All this may seem daunting to consumers, but Eating Better has issued a report containing eight principles to assist them with their food choices, which include the following points:. Choose meat and dairy from well-managed production systems that allow natural animal behaviour, support good health and provide a natural diet to livestock.
Choose livestock products that have a diet based around more local foods and home-grown foodstuffs. Shift diets away from overconsumption of meat and dairy to ensure efficient and fair use of resources. Shift towards more plant-based diets, which would have health benefits for the majority of the population, and cut a third of early deaths , according to one recent report.
Try to buy products that needed minimal antibiotic use in their production, which means avoiding products made by intensive farming. Meat is a precious resource, so make the most of each carcass and reduce the amount of wasted food. Help smaller farmers by choosing meat and dairy from smaller-scale producers with higher standards. Using farm shops, farmers markets and independent butchers can help reconnect buyers with producers. Better Eating also called for clearer labelling to let consumers know how their foodstuffs had been prepared.
It said in its report that in the UK the organic label was the most straightforward as its principles had been out under European Union legislation. As people are becoming more conscious about what they eat, a 'less and better' approach to meat and dairy provides a positive way forward.
As mentioned already, animal rights and veganism will be discussed. The author believes that even though animals used for their byproducts are not being slaughtered, they are still being treated inhumanely because of their poor living conditions which lead to many unnecessary deaths.
Such living conditions include chickens being tightly compacted with no room to walk and a lack of sunlight and fresh air. According to Taylor, this falls under animal cruelty. By informing the reader of a different manner of animal cruelty, Taylor is able to convince an audience to rethink buying from farms that are inhumane.
Not many people include animals to that equation. Even though animals do not have a spoken language, they still are able to feel pain and distress.
What the author is trying to appeal to the reader is that animals and humans are not much different. Based on this statement, Taylor expresses her point by placing animals and humans as equals.
They both have feelings and are aware of their own suffering. Since the average household has at least one pet considered part of the family, Taylor is able to open the minds of the reader to sympathize for their own animals thus being able to sympathize for said farm animals. If eating meat from slaughter houses contributes to animal cruelty, then what could possibly be the alternative?
0コメント