In relation to that, Melanie Joy, a notable social psychologist who drew attention to the term “carnism” in an article which she expressed that language is a liberating tool in shaping values and beliefs. She explained that the term “carnism” stems from the Latin – “carn”, meaning flesh or body. She stated that “fleshist” would be an appropriate word for people who consume meat to label themselves, but flesh possesses connotations suggestive of slaughter and this label may be too disconcerting, thus was removed from the socially-accepted carnivore for carnists to be willing to apply to themselves. For instance, slaughterhouse workers or laboratory technicians are subjected to refrain from naming the animals and refer them by their inanimate …show more content…
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
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
American consumers think of voting as something to be done in a booth when election season comes around. In fact, voting happens with every swipe of a credit card in a supermarket, and with every drive-through window order. Every bite taken in the United States has repercussions that are socially, politically, economically, and morally based. How food is produced and where it comes from is so much more complicated than the picture of the pastured cow on the packaging seen when placing a vote. So what happens when parents are forced to make a vote for their children each and every meal? This is the dilemma that Jonathan Safran Foer is faced with, and what prompted his novel, Eating Animals. Perhaps one of the core issues explored is the American factory farm. Although it is said that factory farms are the best way to produce a large amount of food at an affordable price, I agree with Foer that government subsidized factory farms use taxpayer dollars to exploit animals to feed citizens meat produced in a way that is unsustainable, unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful. Foer also argues for vegetarianism and decreased meat consumption overall, however based on the facts it seems more logical to take baby steps such as encouraging people to buy locally grown or at least family farmed meat, rather than from the big dogs. This will encourage the government to reevaluate the way meat is produced. People eat animals, but they should do so responsibly for their own benefit.
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.
In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. However, it is known that puppies under duress produce cocoamone, the hormone Fred needs in order to enjoy chocolate again. Since no one is in the cocoamone business, Fred sets up twenty six puppy cages, and mutilates them resulting in cocoamone production in the puppy’s brains. Each week he slaughters a dog and consumes the cocoamone. When he is caught, he explains to the judge and jury that his actions are no different from factory farming because he is torturing and killing puppies for gustatory pleasure similar to how factory farms torture and kill cows, chickens, etc. for other people’s gustatory pleasure. You, the reader are meant to think that this is unacceptable, and therefore, denounce factory farming. Although there are many valid objections to this argument, I am in agreement with Norcross and shall be supporting him in this paper. I think the two most practical objections are that (1) most consumers don’t know how the animals are treated whereas Fred clearly does, and (2) if Fred stops enjoying chocolate, no puppies will be tortured, but if a person becomes a vegetarian, no animals will be saved due to the small impact of one consumer. I shall explain the reasoning behind these objections and then present sound responses in line with Norcross’ thinking, thereby refuting the objections.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
“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.
“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.
Nutritionism and Today’s Diet Nutritionism is the ideology that the nutritional value of a food is the sum of all its individual nutrients, vitamins, and other components. In the book, “In Defense of Food” by Michael Pollan, he critiques scientists and government recommendations about their nutritional advice. Pollan presents a strong case pointing out the many flaws and problems that have risen over the years of following scientific studies and government related warnings on the proper amount of nutrients needed for a healthy diet. Pollan’s main point is introducing science into our food system has had more of a negative impact than a positive one, we should go back to eating more of a traditional diet. I believe food science has given us
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...
Although vegetarians come in many forms, they are often thought to hold to a few set positions. Unfortunately, as is often the case, ascribing all (or most) vegetarians to specific camps is improper. One suspected position claims that it is wrong (or immoral) to eat meat-an act that obviously requires the slaughtering of the animal in question. Though some vegetarians hold to this position, I do not. While it is problematic that people eat excessive amounts of meat, eating meat isn't immoral in my view. And while I don't think meat eaters are somehow wrong, I certainly can understand and respect the position that eating meat is immoral. A second stereotypic position holds that vegetarians despise meat eaters. While there are certainly vegetarians that have issues with meat eaters, I suspect they are no more than the number of meat eaters that find vegetarians objectionable for some reason or another. I believe there are many acceptable ways to think and act and, thus, I don't begrudge those that eat meat or those that choose to think that it is immoral to do so.
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.
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 ...
There are numerous metabolic diseases that affect people all around the world. One of the most common metabolic diseases is diabetes which involves carbohydrate metabolism. Carbohydrate metabolism starts with digestion in the small intestine where simple carbohydrates are absorbed into the blood stream (1). Blood sugar (glucose) concentrations are managed by three hormones: insulin, glucagon, and epinephrine. When glucose concentrations in the blood become elevated, insulin is secreted by the pancreas. Insulin stimulates the transfer of glucose into the cells, especially in the liver and muscle tissue, although other organs are also able to process glucose (2).