Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

June Checketts

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

our meals each day.

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

prosecution of humans. With an understanding of animal liberation, we start to understand 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

connected to problematic and life-threatening health problems. The US National Library of

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

ways of having a meal that would not involve senseless killing.

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

1. Singer, Peter. Animals are Equal pg 103-104. 1989.

2. Reagan, Tom. Animal Rights Human Wrongs. pg. 119. 2003.

3. Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Diets: How Does Organic Food Consumption


Contribute to Environmental Sustainability?. Frontiers of Nutrition published 2018. Web
August, 27, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811770/

4. Flexitarianism: flexible or part-time vegetarianism. United Nations. 2016. Web August


2018. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=2252
5. Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk. National institute of Health. 2007. Web August
2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/

Potrebbero piacerti anche