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 …show more content…
He answers questions regarding animal’s right to freedom One may argue that America is a democratic country and therefore everyone should be granted the right to freedom. He may also question that if the constitution itself does not differentiate between animals and humans, then what gives humans the right to? In response to this Pollan states that, “granting rights to the animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity - our own animality” (Pollan 218). Many humans rely on animals for proteins and if they stop suddenly, the entire food chain would get disturbed. As previously stated, Pollan believes that slaughtering an animal can be justified if it’s has received proper care, love, and respect. In addition to this, Bentham also said: “the death they suffer in [slaughterhouses] is, and always may be, a speedier and, by that means, a less painful one than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature” (Pollan 219). Ultimately, having the throat slit is better than getting killed or bitten by a wolf and then left to bleed to death. It is true that if the animal was living in wild then it would be free but then it could also not be able to protect itself from the predators that are more strong and heavy. Slaughterhouses in a way protects these animals from threats from the outside
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
The term self-control, tends to be associated with behavior and emotions. Most would think of controlling behavior caused by emotion. They think of punching the wall because of anger, or not wanting to cry in public. In chapter 8 of the book “The Social Animal” by David Brooks. Brooks confronts misconceptions in the way people view self-control. Specifically, Brooks argues that self-control is more about what the mind gives attention too than about the controlling the emotion or action. Brooks uses the character of Erica and her tennis career to explain how to have self- control. Brooks explains, “She was reminding herself that she had a say in triggering which inner self would dominate her behavior. All she had to do was focus her attention
Culture is expressed through a variety of different ways, from clothing styles to lifestyles to faithful traditions. It can also have a deep impact on the viewpoints of those around you, whether negatively or positively. No matter how a person goes about their everyday life, they can rise above the expectations of their culture to change the world around them. Culture does not have to be the basis of every thought, word, or deed of a person.
As best stated by writer Paul Auster, “the truth of the story lies in the details.” When it comes to novels, the reader must partake in a close reading to get to the nitty gritty of what the author and/or characters of that novel are trying to say. We The Animals, by Justin Torres, is the perfect example of such a novel. There were endless messages throughout the novel linking story lines to one another from beginning to end. However, it is not easy for the reader to understand such details because Torres constantly withholds information from the audience. Torres did not want to easily give up the information; instead he would leave clues for the reader to pick up on. I had to re-read the novel over and over to understand the meanings behind the story. In particular, the chapter “Heritage” caught my attention. This chapter unveiled the true meaning of the word identity to the main characters, also know as the brothers. The
from our animality is a large question, but surely the human fear of death figures in the answer” (6). From this quote, Pollan conveys the idea that we as humans believe we are superior to animals in all aspects of our lives and deaths. Humans are not only the top of the food chain in most cases, but when it comes time to experience death, we jump to an unprovable conclusion that we experience death in a different and unique way. However, as humans we must justify the superiority of human death, otherwise the death of an animal by human hands would make that individual hunter a murderer. Pollan references the quote anticipating that most of his audience feels the same way, but he also references it because it is unlikely that a majority of his readers have actually given a deeper consideration to this thought. By highlighting this uncertainty it leaves his audience no choice, for a moment, to face this reality that mankind has formed. In his article Pollan guides his readers down the path of uncertainty by allowing his readers a glimpse into his personal convictions. For example, the comparison he forms between “stumbling upon some strangers pornography” (6) and the “trophy portrait”(6) of him posing in front of the slaughtered boar shows the disgust he felt after having time to reflect. The
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
Breeding sows are confined in gestation stalls, pigs have their tails cut off without anesthesia, calves are tethered by their necks in veal crates, and egg-laying hens are debeaked and kept in cages too small to spread their wings in; in a factory farm, animals are treated as commodities. This vivid imagery depicts the facts pertaining to animals. The search for solutions has focused on two paths; one reforming the system and instituting more humane standards, and the second promoting veganism so that fewer animals are bred, nurtured, and slaughtered. While few animal activists disagree with promoting veganism, some believe that campaigning for reforms, and humane labeling is counter-productive. Humane standards can either be required by law, or instituted voluntarily by farmers. Farmers who voluntarily agree to higher humane standards are either opposed to factory farming, or are trying to appeal to consumers who prefer meat from humanely raised and slaughtered animals. There is no single definition of “humane meat,” and many animal activists would say that the term is an oxymoron. Different meat producers and organizations have their own humane standards by which they abide. Humane standards might include larger cages, no cages, natural feed, less painful methods of slaughter, or prohibition of practices such as tail docking or debeaking. In some cases, campaigns target retailers or restaurants instead of the actual producers, and pressure the companies to purchase animal products only from producers who raise the animals according to certain voluntary standards. Societies individuality is split by advocates and opponents; is there a fine line between truth and falsehood, or is animal slaughter for diet always inhumane?
Throughout the novel what stands out the most for me in “We The Animals” is that the narrator is gay and his family can’t face the face the fact that the good kid at of all turned that way. When the family read the narrator diary they saw a different perspective on the narrator. In my opinion, that 's an invasion of privacy and should of asked permission. The narrator wrote “ I had written fantasises about the men I met at the bus station, about what I wanted me”. How the narrator felt was his fears dimmed to black and his vision blurred. If somebody ever read my journal without my okay i will be furious and embarrassed because the person read my journal. I know how hard it for him when his family found out, he felt alone and panicked and
“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.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
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).
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.
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. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...