In this essay, I will support David Fraser’s argument that it is essential for people who handle consumer meats to provide animals with an adaptive environment and develop relationships with farm animals to achieve the three dimensions of animal welfare: fundamental health and functioning, positive affective states, and the preservation of natural behavior of that species. I will also present and critique an alternative means of achieving animal welfare in which animal producers can change the genetic makeup of animals, either through selection or genetic engineering, in a way that will lower the threshold for sufficient welfare. In the first section, I will define and explain Fraser’s argument; then, I will explicate what it means to genetically …show more content…
By altering the genetic makeup of farm animals, it will be easier to meet standards of living to satisfy animal contentment. For example, chickens can engineered to be born blind which, in turn, makes them more docile and avoids the de-beaking process. Or, sows in CAFOs can be genetically modified to be cognitive deficient so that it will no longer experience pain. If this is attained, then farm animals will never have to suffer at all no matter how they are treated.
Now that I have demonstrated the reconstruction of Fraser’s viewpoint and reviewed genetically modified means of reaching animal welfare, we can come to an agreement that both options achieve some dimension of welfare. If producers of GM farm animal can essentially eliminate the dimension of pain, will changing it be a beneficial and positive impact? If so, is the GM option morally permissible?
I agree that genetically modified animals suffer less physical pain. However, those in favor of GM animals fail to notice that it does not consider a few, but critical
…show more content…
There is no doubt that there are real beneficial effects for livestock that do not experience pain. As Adam Shriver stresses in Knocking out Pain in Livestock, even if skilled workers handle slaughter carefully, there will be times when something goes wrong and an animal is not immediately killed. The non-genetically modified farm animals will suffer through extremely painful deaths. Altering and minimizing their natural behavior of expressing pain will positively impact their affective states. As consumers and producers, we would be more morally responsible by preventing unnecessary
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 Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
When people are eating meat, have they ever stopped and asked themselves what they 're eating, or what type of life the animal they 're eating went through. The articles “An Animal’s Place” by Michael Pollan, explains the moral issue if it 's correct to consume meat. “The Omnivore 's Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals”, by Blake Hurst, defends himself against critics who says negativity about industrial farming and the ways animals are treated. After close examination of both articles, the reader would be able to determine what type of farming is more logical.
We care so much about what the food is and how it is made that we overlook about where the food had come from. According to the reading selection, “Killing Them with Kindness?” by James McWilliams, an American history professor at Texas State University, states “animals raised in factory farms have qualities that make them worthy of our moral consideration…[and yet, we] continue to ignore the ethical considerations involved in eating meat” (311). This exhibits that when Americans are so engrossed in healthy eating, our morals about animal rights are neglected. Most of what we eat are animals, and animals like we do have emotions, interests, and possibly goals in life. We pay no heed of the animal’s interests and it should not be that way since our interests are no more important just because we are more superior, intelligent beings should not give us the right to perceive animals in such a manner. In addition to paying notice of the origin of where the animals come from, we need to be aware of what killing animals will do to the earth. In the TedTalk, “What’s Wrong with the Way We Eat,” Mark Bittman states “10 billion animals are killed each year for food and they represent 18% of the harmful greenhouse gasses” (Bittman). This reveals that our careless consumption would not only lead to the suffering of animal deaths but the suffering of our world and our imminent death. As we increase our progression with our unhealthy obsession over healthy eating, there will not be any positive effects for the body, the animals around us, or the world. If we were to be conscious about the source of our food and the consequence of eating then we will be able to eat healthily 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.
Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
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).
“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.
...e Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21.6 (2008): 580-96. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
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.
As a human, we possess certain rights that protect us in society, however the animals we raise for food live under a much more complicated system that constantly changes. Americans have recently begun to protest animal treatment, especially in the meat industry. Many animal rights groups claim that animal farming is an inhuman practice that violates the rights of all living creatures. Farmers believe that animal right shouldn't change as any changes could cost them millions in new technology to safely care for the animals. The American farming industry poses several moral issues about animal rights which possess no easy solution, however new alternatives appear to have answers for this growing dilemma.
The issue of meat consumption has been a controversial topic on whether to allow the practice or discontinue it, non-meat eaters argue it’s unethical because it is abusive to animals. On the other hand, meat consumers argue that eating meat is ethical as long as meat eaters are conscious of how their meat is collected and the treatment of livestock is fair. The consumption of meat is an act that an individual decides whether to partake in or not. Therefore, the option of eating meat should not be completely taken away, but it should be limited. Eating meat ties in with vegetarian and vegan diets, in the sense that both have to follow guidelines to create an ethical approach to eating any grown foods. The consumption of food is ethical when