An Argument for Vegetarianism
ABSTRACT: In this paper I propose to answer the age-old reductio against vegetarianism, which is usually presented in the form of a sarcastic question ( e.g., "How do you justify killing and eating plants?"). Addressing the question takes on special significance in the light of arguments which seem to show that even nonsentient life is intrinsically valuable. Thus, I suggest that we rephrase the question in the following manner: When beings (who are biological and thus dependent on the destruction of other forms of life in order to sustain their own) evolve into societies of moral agents are they entitled merely to assume that they retain their license to destroy other life in order to sustain their own? I answer in the negative. I argue that such societies must continually earn that right by engaging in activity that makes up for and augments the values that they destroy. Unlike other biological beings, humans have complete control over what they eat, whether they eat, and whether they reproduce. Hence, the appeals to necessity that are ubiquitous in justifications of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets are inauthentic and must be accordingly forsaken. We will have to appeal instead to the value of particular human activities that are fueled by our consumption of other lives.
'So you don't eat animals, but you do eat plants. Plants, like animals, are living things how do you justify killing and eating them?'
The mock indignation and air of self-congratulation which invariably accompany this question make it plain that the speaker does not expect the requested information but rather believes that he or she has delivered an original and decisive reductio ad absurdum against vegetariani...
... middle of paper ...
...sort of axiology that last-person arguments are meant to establish. All creatures imaginable are valued and are attributed with at least one sense, from human beings (five-sensed) to leeches (two-sensed) to clods of earth (one-sensed). Any intentional act of violence against any of these is considered sinful, even an act done for a good cause (e.g., to feed human beings). It is odd, then, that Jainism is merely dismissed in environmentalist literature (Nash 1989, 70; Kalupahana 1989, 248; Curtin 1992, 141 n. 12).
(3) My complaint here is against the deliberate ascetic. When people lead meager lives on the edge of physical exhaustion and starvation because of the inequities of economic distribution, it is not they but their oppressors who do an injustice to the environment, using the latter to fill their bellies and their wallets through acts of social injustice.
Cocaine itself is derived from the coca plant commonly found in South America. For centuries, the native people of South America have used the coca plant, its leaves in particular, as a stimulant for long work hours as well as for medical purposes. It was not until 1859 that modern cocaine was developed as a drug in Germany (Crack Cocaine History, n.d.). By the late 1800’s, the medical knowledge of cocaine had spread world-wide and many American doctors began to prescribe the use of cocaine as a medical drug to cure different illnesses and ease common pain. It wasn’t until the early 1900’s, however, that the negative side effects of cocaine became apparent; these side effects included addiction and death. With such detrimental side effects, cocaine was declared a threat to the nation and in 1914, cocaine became what’s known as a controlled substance that could only be obtained by a prescription from a doctor for medical reasons only (much like today’s ‘medical marijuana’). However, by controlling access and usage of cocaine, America inadvertently gave way to an entirely new drug cartel that they weren’t prepared to deal with. In the beginning of cocaine being a controlled substance, it became less popular and one of the lesser drugs to be abused in the United States. It wasn’t until the 1960’s and 70’s that the use of cocaine became popular again. This widespread ‘cocaine boom’ affected all
Konheim-Kalkstein, Yasmine L. "A Uniform Look." American School Board Journal 193.8 (2006): 25-27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 May 2014.
Colb, Sherry. "A Response to the Claim That Eating Animals Is Natural." Free From Harm. N.p., 25 July 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
This paper could be targeted at a couple of audiences. Firstly this paper could appeal to the general public, or anyone interested in school uniforms in general. More specifically, the papers audience could be the Greeley-Evans School Districts employees and board members.
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 Historical Roots of Our Ecological crisis” has been the spark of a long standing debate about the impact of religion on environmental degradation. Comparing White and Whitney’s respective essay’s brings together two different perspectives ultimately shaping ones opinion on this subject of matter. Conclusively I can say Whitney’s points are valid and interesting as they identify the crucial flaws that White fails to take into account. Unlike most response papers, Whitney’s agreements with White are superficial in the broadest sense. The points that contend White’s thesis are all points that I agree as they pertain to the generation that I live in and I can see where her ideas stem from in day to day life.
Taylor believes that if one concedes and accepts the first three components then acceptance of the fourth component is not unreasonable. He also suggests that in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature one must accept all four elements of the biocentric outlook. “Once we reject the claim that humans are superior either in merit or in worth to other living things, we are ready to adopt the attitude of respect. The denial of human superiority is itself the result of taking the perspective on nature built into the first three elements of the biocentric outlook” (Taylor 153). This is where Taylor is mistaken. I will argue in the subsequent paper that humans, as a condition of moral agency, are superior to other living things and that one does not need to accept Taylor’s fourth element in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature.
The subject of school uniforms can spark quite a debate among proponents and opponents on both sides of the issue. You can find mixed feelings whether you talk to school administration and staff, parents, or the students themselves. In my research, I see more pros than cons associated with a school uniform policy; therefore, I would like to examine some of these positive impacts more closely. It is exciting to see how these policies are making a resoundingly-positive impact in our children’s lives! I think, as parents, we all want to level the playing field for our children.
The opposition claims that school uniforms reprimand students of their ability to show fashion and style. However, school is an environment purposed for learning, and while it may be entertaining to show fashion and style, certain clothing can be distracting ("FactsPlusLogic"). By not regulating such unnecessary distractions, the academic status of the school could become skewed. Surely, schools who do not implement uniforms in their systems are contradicting the purpose of the learning environment itself. Opposing viewpoints might also claim that the prices for school uniforms are too expensive for families of low income ("Pros and Cons"). However, often times schools will sell or swap used uniforms to families who cannot afford to buy new ones. One can also find discounted, used uniforms at local consignment stores ("How Much Does a School Uniform Cost?"). Since the uniforms would be previously used, prices should never be of great concern. It is clear that when observing the positives and “negatives” of school uniforms, one can conclude that the learning environment will be only positively
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
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.
Uniforms are worn for many different reasons such as being in jail or going to work, and you can see them today almost anywhere in the world. Now uniforms are becoming a popular trend amongst schools. The question is should students be forced to wear them? Some parents and teachers say that uniforms keep the students focused on academics and not fashion. Opposers believe that kids should have the freedom to choose what they wear to school. Although, uniforms do limit the student’s choice to wear whatever they please, which is the con to having the enforcement, uniforms are supposed to be looked upon as a positive thing. They eliminate bullying, help students focus only on academics, combine social classes and gives the school campus a professional
Williams, Darlene. ?School Uniforms. The Raging Debate.? Retrieved 29 April 2005. From the world wide web: file:///E:/ISTC%20201/School%20Uniforms%20The% 20Raging%20Debate%20by%20Darlene%20Williams.htm
School Uniforms have become more and more common throughout the years in the United States. Many parents and students do not agree with the implementation of uniforms because they believe it takes away their child's own “style” or “creativity”. However, some parents feel that uniforms add an extra safety barrier for their children. Although some may say school uniforms limit their students’ freedom of dress, school systems should implement uniforms because uniforms create an equal environment for all students, uniforms keep students focused on their education, not the clothes others’ are wearing, and school uniforms increase student safety.
We neatly separate animals into relatively artificial categories – “pets”, “wild animals”, and “farm animals”. These categories affect how we treat those within the category. For instance, our treatment of farm animals would be illegal if applied towards pets. If a shed filled with cages was then crammed by dogs so tightly that limits them to stretch or move freely, one would face strong social and legal sanction, but would probably differ in the case for chickens. According to two recent studies by Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson, it was observed that conservatives consume more meat and exploit animals more because they dismiss the threat that vegetarianism and veganism supposedly pose to traditions and cultural practice, and they feel more entitled to consume animals given human “superiority”. Aside from that, the study also examined the possibility of both conservatives and socialists in simply preferring the taste of meat thus consuming them. It appeared that the conservatives are more likely to consume more meat for reasons related to ideology, even after statistically removing the influence of hedonistically liking the taste of meat from the