Eating Animals Quotes by Jonathan Safran Foer
Chinese Dog Meat Festival - Undercover Cameras Reveal Brutality
My beef isn't with beef: why I stopped being a vegetarian
Most vegetarians I know are not primarily motivated by nutrition. Although they argue strenuously for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, many see good health as a reward for the purity and virtue of a vegetarian diet, or as an added bonus. In my experience, a far more potent motivator among vegetarians--ranging from idealistic college students, to social and environmental activists, to adherents of Eastern spiritual traditions like Buddhism and Yoga--is the moral or ethical case for not eating meat. Enunciated with great authority by such spiritual luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi, and by environmental crusaders such as Frances Moore Lappe, the moral case against eating meat seems at first glance to be overpowering. As a meat eater who cares deeply about living in harmony with the environment, and as an honest person trying to eliminate hypocrisy in the way I live, I feel compelled to take these arguments seriously. A typical argument goes like this: In order to feed modern society's enormous appetite for meat, animals endure unimaginable suffering in conditions of extreme filth, crowding and confinement. Chickens are packed twenty to a cage, hogs are kept in concrete stalls so narrow they can never turn around.
Gary L. Francione is the Board of Governors distinguished professor of law and Nichols deB. The reaction to what the accused cat kicker did is understandable and laudable. It is nothing short of terrible that anyone would harm a defenseless animal. But how different is it from slaughtering animals for food?
On this page
The question of whether it is right to eat animal flesh is among the most prominent topics in food ethics. Ethical vegetarians and ethical vegans  may also object to the practices underlying the production of meat , or cite concerns about animal welfare , animal rights , environmental ethics , and religious reasons. In response, some proponents of meat-eating have adduced various scientific, nutritional, cultural, and religious arguments in support of the practice. Peter Singer — Princeton University and University of Melbourne professor and pioneer of the animal liberation movement —has long argued that, if it is possible to survive and be healthy without eating meat, fish, dairy , or eggs , one ought to choose that option instead of causing unnecessary harm to animals. In Animal Liberation , Singer argued that, because non-human animals feel, they should be treated according to utilitarian ethics.
They are harmed in feeling pain, but this harm is not of a moral kind … Since animals lack moral status, it is not wrong to eat meat, even if this is not essential to nutrition. People in this camp believe that the pain and suffering animals endure is close to or even just as real as that felt by humans and that we should feel a similar compassion for a pig as we do for a mentally-disabled human with the same cognitive capacity. Some ask us to confront the circumstance of an alien species more advanced than humans landing on Earth. Others point to the environmental harm caused by the livestock industry—its significant contribution to water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, among other concerns. There are people who think vegetarianism is critical while veganism is unnecessary. Some protest the poor treatment of animals in the livestock industry but are fine with the actual practice of eating meat, if the raising of the meat was done humanely. Others are fine with eating lower-level animals but not those which are more sentient—like Christopher Cox, who argues that eating oysters is the moral equivalent of eating plants.
Heather Alberro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. There are many reasons why people decide to cut animal products from their diet, but the negative health effects of excessive meat and dairy consumption and the enormous environmental impacts of industrial agriculture are popular ones. Such views are often bolstered by powerful moral arguments framing animals as subjects of a life , able to experience pain , and as leaders of complex emotional lives. By framing the consumption of other living beings as an inherent moral wrong, ontological veganism also risks demonising predation. Some of us — especially those living in wealthy countries — can indeed choose to opt for vegan products, but this argument reproduces another false dichotomy: nature vs. Come among the deer on the hill, the fish in the river, the quail in the meadows. You can take them, you can eat them, like you they are food.