Meat Morality And Murder Analysis

620 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: What is the difference between morality and ethics

A Response to “Meat, Morality, and Murder” In this paper, I will argue that it is not immoral for one to consume factory- raised meats. It’s inhuman to abuse, torture, and keep animals in merciless conditions. First, I will start out by explaining the argument. After the argument is explained, I will then explain the argument of Samantha Jacob in the most compelling way possible. To conclude this paper, I will then expose the argument of Samantha Jacob. The Schematic argument of Jacob’s argument is: 1) Torturing puppies for pleasure purposes is wrong 2) Killing animals that have been tortured is also wrong 3) Therefore, torturing any animal is wrong Jacob starts of her paper by introducing a man named Fred. A couple years ago Fred was involved in a car accident that damaged his Godiva gland, which is a gland that secrets cocamone. Before the car accident Fred like most people had a serious love for chocolate. After the accident however Fred wasn’t able to enjoy chocolate at all do to the damage. Fred then takes matters into his own hands and starts his own cocamone lab in his basement. He would torture, abuse, and perform mutations on puppies for six months to produce enough cocamone to last him a week. Jacob says, “It is, of couse, unfortunate for Fred that he can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate, but that in no way excuses the imposition of severe suffering on the puppies.” …show more content…

Jacobs says that many if not most Americans eat meats that come from animals who have been tortured, abused, and living in treacherous living conditions. Jacob then compares Fred abusing puppies for six months to Americans eating meats of animals that have been abused in factory’s. She explains that. “She is unable to discover any morally relevant difference between the behavior of Fred, the puppy torturer, and the behavior of the millions of people who purchase and consume factory-raised

Show More
Related

  • More Pros Than Cons In A Meat-Free Life Analysis

    125 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Puppies Pigs And People Summary

    634 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alastair Norcross in his article “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal cases “expresses the moral dilemma based on factory farming. Norcross gives an example of a man named Fred. Fred has to torture puppies in order to be able to enjoy chocolate. This is because when puppies are brutally tortured and then brutally killed they release a chemical called cocoamone. This chemical enhances the taste of chocolate, so Fred is killing puppies for gustatory pleasure. Any morally sound person would be appalled at what Frank is doing to these puppies and that is the basis of Norcross’s article. He is arguing that raising animals on factory farms and what Fred is doing are both morally wrong, because in both cases we are brutally killing the

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Factory Farming: Alastair Norcross's Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.

    Read More

  • Norcross: Torturing Puppies And Eating Meat Summary

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    Norcross expresses that when he said that “it is, of course unfortunate for Fred that he can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate, but that in no way excuses the imposition of severe suffering on the puppies.” Therefore, Norcross believes Fred is morally wrong for having the puppies suffer in order for him to be able to enjoy the taste of chocolate again. In Norcross’ next premises, he believes that people whom purchase and eat factory farm meats while knowing what torture that animals endure in the farms are equally morally wrong like Fred with the puppies. People who consume factory meats are doing that for their own pleasure too, like Fred. According to Norcross, people do not need to consume meat for health reasons. Norcross points out that the majority of people who eliminate meats from their diet, do not suffer any ill health issues and can live healthy without

    Read More

  • Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Korean Dog Eating Tradition

    1186 Words  | 3 Pages

    The strongest argument against the dog meat industry centers on the treatment of the dogs that are often killed by ?beating, strangling, [and] boiling? instead of more humane methods such as electrocution. Unnecessary cruelty against animals is universally considered wrong, and is in many cases illegal, and that is what makes this argument effective. Saletan addresses this argument logically, with the simple fact that in the interest of humane treatment of dogs ?South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry.? This simple fact exposes a fundamental hypocrisy within the opposing viewpoint. Saletan argues that it is the same activists who base their arguments on ending cruelty against dogs who are trying to keep new, more humane methods from being adopted. The activists condemn and deplore cruel ...

    Read More

  • Jonathan Safran Foer Eating Animals Rhetorical Analysis

    776 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Ethics and Morality in Vegetarianism

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    “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.

    Read More

  • Eating Animals, by Jonathan Safran Foer

    946 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of An Animal Place By Michael Pollan

    1023 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Essay On Factory Farming

    790 Words  | 2 Pages

    Factory farms have portrayed cruelty to animals in a way that is horrific; unfortunately the public often does not see what really goes on inside these “farms.” In order to understand the conditions present in these factory farms, it must first be examined what the animals in these factory farms are eating. Some of the ingredients commonly used in feeding the animals inside factory farms include the following: animal byproducts, plastic, drugs and chemicals, excessive grains, and meat from members of the same species. (Adams, 2007) These animals are tortured and used for purely slaughter in order to be fed on. Typically large numbers of animals are kept in closed and tight confinements, having only little room to move around, if even that. These confinements can lead to suffocation and death and is not rare. Evidence fr...

    Read More

  • Should We Be Vegetarians?

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Why Eating Meat is Morally Impermissible

    1449 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • It is Better to be a Vegetarian

    1128 Words  | 3 Pages

    For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.

    Read More

  • Should we all become vegetarians?

    796 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.

    Read More

More about Meat Morality And Murder Analysis

Open Document