More handpicked essays just for you.
Environmental and Sustainability movements
Conclusion of meat consumption
Environmental and Sustainability movements
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Meating with Thinking
Have you ever felt yourself cruel when you are eating meat? Michael Pollan represents his struggle to defend his meat eating habit in “An Animal’s Place”. In the first several pages, he narrates the arguments of Peter Singer and discusses whether the animals should be viewed equally as human. At this point, he tries to illustrate many distinctions between the animals and the humans, but he finds it still hard to decide whether it is right for people to consume meat. Pollan also describes what goes on behind the scenes in the meat industry and this turns out to be a call to us to think about the real welfare for the animals. After doing a lot of research, he then finds out that there are some farms working for animals’
…show more content…
He describes a scene in which he is eating a steak at the Palm and reading the Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation. The book is talking about animals’ equality in relation to humans and animal rights, but at the same time, what he is doing is eating animals, like everybody normally does. He uses this dissonance to arouse our interest and make the audience feel involved, succeeding in making a connection to readers to lead meat eaters to reconsider their practives. He mentions the opinions of Singer’s and other animal rights activists. He tries to guide us to address the problem by narrating a lengthy description of the research he did. In order to defend his meat-eating against Singer’s argument that we should not eat animals, he starts to establish a back-and-forth argument about the meat eating habit to put forward the main points of his argument. Here he concedes that the animal activists often make good points. For example, when he talks about standards like intelligence to divide humans and nonhumans, he wonders “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?” (par. 12). The debate he shows us between him and the animal rights activists helps him build a connection with the audience. It is like the author is seeking for the facts just …show more content…
He contrasts the way animals are treated in industrial farms to the Polyface Farm to discuss what is the ideal place set for animals. He mentions Matthew Scully’s book Dominion. In this book, Scully calls the contemporary farm “our own worst nightmare” (par.44) The hens are “force-molted” and animals are treated as machines incapable of feeling pain. The scene of Polyface Farm is totally different. Each species can fully express its nature. Six different food animals are raised in an ecologically sound and humane way. Cows can graze happily, pigs and chickens have their open pastures. This kind of comparison proves that animals here are happy and we can eat these animals in an ethical way, which contradicts Singer’s point. In this way, Pollan illustrates that not all the farms are full of mistreatment of animals, there still exists a farm that works for animal welfare, and we can choose to eat the animals that have been slaughtered in a peaceful
From the beginning of the advertisement, we are shown the success of the doctor. The initial shot zooms out from the medical bag which we presume to carry supplies or tools of the medical trade. The doctor then gets into a nice automobile with an “M.D.” addition to his license plate. These signifiers reminds us of his success and authority. During the doctor’s “time out” that is few and far between, he chooses to smoke a Camel cigarette. According to a nationwide survey, more doctors smoke Camels than any other brand. Camels are reported as mild and good tasting. The final shot shows a
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
“An Animals’ Place” by Michael Pollan is an article that describes our relationship and interactions with animals. The article suggests that the world should switch to a vegetarian diet, due to the mistreatment of animals. The essay includes references from animal rights activists and philosophers. These references are usually logical statement that compare humans and non-human animals in multiple levels, such as intellectual and social.
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
Manipulation of language can be a weapon of mind control and abuse of power. The story Animal Farm by George Orwell is all about manipulation, and the major way manipulation is used in this novel is by the use of words. The character in this book named Squealer employs ethos, pathos, and logos in order to manipulate the other animals and maintain control.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
“The pen is mightier than the sword.” This is a popular saying that explains that, sometimes, in order to persuade or convince people, one should not use force but words. In Animal Farm, by George Orwell, animals overthrow the human leader and start a new life, but some animals want to become the new leaders. To make the other animals obey the pigs, they first have to persuade the farm’s population. Squealer is the best pig for this job because he effectively convinces the animals to follow Napoleon by using different rhetorical devices and methods of persuasion.
Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
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 treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
The animal rights group, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), is known for their forthright method of promoting vegetarianism. PETA has mainly used celebrities in slightly sexualized advertisements to advocate their claim that vegetarianism is the healthiest and best lifestyle. However, widespread outrage erupted in 2009 after the animal rights organization launched their “Save the Whales” campaign. The introductory campaign ad featured a billboard presumably shaming a woman for being obese, due to her meat-eating. As a result, the activist group was accused of “fat shaming”. PETA’s advertisement uses pathos to shame people into vegetarianism, ethos to support their claims that vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle, and images
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...