Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
4/26/18
Environmental Ethics
Final Paper
Moral Vegetarianism
I made a choice some time ago to be vegetarian and after taking a course on environmental
ethics this only reaffirmed the choice I made to not consume meat in my diet. During this course
we watched a heated debate called "Don’t eat anything with a face" this discussion highlighted
how humans take advantage of animals to hunt and to eat with little regard for their lives and
only our profit. I would argue that ethically and morally all people should consider a vegetarian
diet not only for their own health but to aid animals and the earth as well. Our society is living
behind a curtain of ignorance when it comes to our food, if everyone could look deeper into how
our food was treated they most likely wouldn’t take another bite. People in general have good
basic morals when it comes to other humans but why have we not extended our morals to include
animals? I will argue that ethically everyone should consider to be vegetarian to stop cruelty to
animals.
This fight for a plant-based diet will not be won overnight however at the end of the "Don’t
eat anything with a face" debate the majority of the audience had changed its stance to support
the argument, that alone was a small victory that when given all the facts consumers may think
twice about meat products. Most people strive to live positive and harm free but do not realize
their diet is harming living beings every day. Neil Branard and Gene Baur argue in the debate
that with a vegetarian diet we can live without harming or causing unnecessary pain to a living
being. To further the discussion, they argue that the meat industry is a big contributor to climate
change as well as health issues. However, before we look into the health and environmental
issues of meat consumption we must look into why we should extend our moral circle to animals
and why considering them to be more than food should be important and morally a necessity.
One of the first to introduce this idea was Peter Singer, who bases his consideration of animals
into the moral circle based on their ability to feel pleasure or pain. Before Singer introduced his
theory, the general idea was that humans were above other species because of our ability to think
and communicate. However, as Singer would elaborate that this idea would be "spiciest"
meaning to be prejudice against another species and not giving them consideration into the moral
circle simply because they are different from us. With these new ideas of an animal liberation
movement Singer purposed the idea that humans were not above animals and instead we should
respect their interest to avoid pain and suffering as much as our own. In his own words Singer
states "I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us
recognize should be extended to all members of our own species" ("Animals are Equal", pg.
103). By equality Singer means to give animals equal opportunities and a chance at life, this
equality would be different for humans versus other beings as singer explains "the extension of
the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat the
groups exactly the same way or grant exactly the same rights to both groups. Whether we should
do so will depended on the nature of the members of the two groups" ("Animals are Equal", Pg.
104). Overall Peter singer makes the argument that animals can feel pain so we should help them
avoid those pains and give them equality when it comes to living a harm free life. This idea in
turn would support a vegetarian lifestyle that we are not causing harm to any living beings to get
Another strong voice who advocates for animal rights is Tom Reagan, who similarly to Singer
argued for equality but sought a different route of the standards that should be applied when
considering the moral circle for animals. For Regan it is not about sentience but rather the
complex idea that you are aware of our life and subject to a life, thus you deserve to be in control
of that life. This is explained in a quote from Reagan "animals are not mere things, they are
subject to a life that is better or worse for them, they have inherent value" ("Animal Rights,
Human Wrongs". Pg.119) meaning that we should not harm animals because they are aware of
their lives even if they cannot communicate that to us, they do have a life that is their own. Both
Reagan and Singer make a case for animal rights that in general states animals can feel and they
have lives just as we do, so why are they being treated only as a means to an end by the
plight of other species outside our own as a food source. If we start to believe animals have
feelings and treat them with equal rights then it makes it simply harder to consume them and use
them a material.
Cruelty against animals is the main reason many people morally change their diet to a
vegetarian or vegan practice, however this ethic can go one step further to include what is best
for the environment not just certain species. Factory farming can harm the environment more
than most consumers are aware, causing air pollution, water pollution, and wasting valuable
resources. A study done by Frontiers of Nutrition states "A higher provegetarian score was
associated with lower environmental impacts" by partaking in a plant-based diet we are not only
preventing harm to animals but slowly reducing our negative footprint on the planet
("Environmental Impacts"). Global warming is another big reason to slow meat consumption,
the United Nations has come forward to say that the world should move towards a plant-based
diet to prevent greenhouse gasses due to the meat industry. The United Nations states that
individuals should begin to embrace a vegetarian diet at least a few times a week if not all
together because supporting the meat industry has such a direct impact to the environmental state
of the world "Climate change looms as one of the biggest environmental crises in human history
and the lifecycle and supply chain of livestock products is the largest contributor of Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions worldwide" ("Flexitarianism"). The signs point towards a plant-based
future if the world wishes to reduce the negative effects of factories and mass-produced meat
products. A productive solution to deter greenhouse gasses and pollution would be plant-based
eating and organic farming, the world wouldn’t give up eating meat in one day so those that
choose that path should choose an organic source if nothing else to stop supporting big industry
farming. As seen meat consumption and production has proven negative effects on the
environment that are long lasting and will be hard to reverse for the future generation. However,
this negative impact goes deeper into the lives of the consumer, meat products have been
Medicine conducted a study of the relation of meat consumption to cancer risk and found there
was a direct relationship between the two. They found that red and processed meats to be the
worst for the consumers health "red and processed meat intake appears to be positively
associated with risk of cancer of the colon and rectum, esophagus, liver, lung, and pancreas" in
conclusion processed meats have a negative impact on the environment as well as the individuals
consuming it ("Meat Consumption"). In total do the problems caused by the meat industry do not
justify eating meat products, they cause more harm to animals the earth and even humans.
The final frontier of moral vegetarianism needs to be addressed, what about real organic
farmers who are raising their own animals and growing their own produce this has to be the
moral solution, we can have our animals and eat them too. I will argue that we ethically cannot
eat those animals no matter how they were raised, even if it wasn’t in a big corporate factory it
would still be the taking of a life that is not ours to take. There are farmers out there who
strongly oppose factory farming and the mistreatment of animals like Joe Salatin who has written
books on the topic however as much he loves and nurtures his livestock he will ultimately kill
them for a profit. This killing is unnecessary, brutal, wrong, simply humans do not have any
reason to participate in it for any other reason than to get an entrée of animal flesh for dinner.
The fight for a vegetarian diet is edging closer to victory with new options and recipes
emerging every day for the consumer, however the fight for animal rights has a long way to go. I
would urge people to make the ethical switch to vegetarianism or veganism to prevent any more
harm to animals. I would argue a mixture of both Tom Reagan's and Peter Singer's ideas when it
comes to animal rights that we can see animals have a life that is their own, and that they can feel
pleasure or pain and with both of these ideas how can we enslave them to be a source of
unnecessary luxury? Chickens, cows and pigs are living in harsh conditions only to be
slaughtered with no chance at a better situation because the human race imposes this life upon
them. The lives these animals live are not fair, not just, and by all means unmoral if you can look
into the eyes of that calf and see the pain you would see that this animal is very aware of its life
and it is very aware who is in control. It is obvious animals are aware of their lives and that they
can feel pain and pleasures yet they treated like machines and used relentlessly for their flesh.
Morally we cannot justify this poor treatment of living beings especially when we have other
The choice to eat meat free is at the end the most ethical thing one can do to help animals, the
environment and live a healthier course of life. I would argue that one cannot live a fulfilled life
morally and eat meat due to the ethical implications, I urge consumers to think twice before
supporting the meat industry and think twice before you take another bite of your morning
bacon. It is more than a piece of meat, it was a living, breathing, being with a life all its own.
Works Cited