Arguments Against The Ethics Of Eating Meat
One of the major arguments within today’s food dilemma, is whether or not it is ethical for us humans to consume meat. The issue rises from the mistreatment of farm animals in horrible conditions to the horrific slaughter. Several people such as Singer are arguing that in order to solve this issue we must stop the consumption of meat and animal products. However many other people believe that animal consumption is natural and it is what makes us human. In the following, I will challenge Singer’s view of which we should stop animal consumption by arguing that to stop eating meat is morally unacceptable and impractical for humans. This is important to discuss as Singer’s view is based on a utopian world, it is simply unrealistic for large amounts
…show more content…
One example the objector might use is comparing the farming of animals to the slavery of African Americans and that every life deserves freedom. I can see how the horrible treatment of animals in cramped farms and the horrific slaughter in some cases of farming is relatable to slavery in a way. However, I will argue that this objection is not a threat to my view. Michael Pollan brought up a great response to this argument, “But most domesticated animals can’t survive in the wild, in fact, without us eating them they wouldn’t exist at all” (Omnivore’s Dilemma 310). Eating meat and consuming animal products is good for humanity because eating them ensures the animal’s survival. Cows and chickens have existed for thousands of years because we take care of them and their offspring. If we were to simply let them go and have their freedom, then we are basically sending them to their deaths and extinction. These animals are domesticated and need us to feed them and take care of them. They won’t be able to survive the weather and will most likely die from starvation or be killed by predators. Therefore we see why animal farming and consumption isn’t a problem, because by eating these animals means we ensure their survival and they won’t be able to survive in the wild if we let them
One example the objector might use is comparing the farming of animals to the slavery of African Americans and that every life deserves freedom. I can see how the horrible treatment of animals in cramped farms and the horrific slaughter in some cases of farming is relatable to slavery in a way. However, I will argue that this objection is not a threat to my view. Michael Pollan brought up a great response to this argument, “But most domesticated animals can’t survive in the wild, in fact, without us eating them they wouldn’t exist at all” (Omnivore’s Dilemma 310). Eating meat and consuming animal products is good for humanity because eating them ensures the animal’s survival. Cows and chickens have existed for thousands of years because we take care of them and their offspring. If we were to simply let them go and have their freedom, then we are basically sending them to their deaths and extinction. These animals are domesticated and need us to feed them and take care of them. They won’t be able to survive the weather and will most likely die from starvation or be killed by predators. Therefore we see why animal farming and consumption isn’t a problem, because by eating these animals means we ensure their survival and they won’t be able to survive in the wild if we let them