Day-to-day Survival with Plants and Animals - Essay Example

number: Day-to-day survival with plants and animals There are many people in the United s with varying views concerning animal rights. Some of them believe that we have moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals, leaving us the suggestion that we should leave away a nation of meat eaters and shift to vegetarianism. Concerning this point, various philosophical considerations surface in order to convince the public that we have indeed moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals. Arguments are therefore essential in this case and it is the primary purpose of the work at hand to critically evaluate and focus on the relevant articles that Michael Pollan, Tom Regan and Harriet Schleifer have made available for the public’s perusal online. It is important to consider in a critical fashion whether they have substantially offered a clear point to convince us of what they claim that we have moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals and that we need to shift to vegetarianism. Michael Pollan essentially believes that we have moral or ethical responsibilities towards animals. This evident in his point of view when he tries to argue that it is just fine to consume meat from animals for as long as humans must implement the entire process with consciousness, ceremony and respect that these concerned animals deserve (Pollan). In other words, Polan believes that animals have certain rights as well, knowing that his point reveals the fundamental treatment that animals may potentially deserve even if they are the kind solely intended for human consumption. Pollan is trying to imply that animals which might be primarily meant for meat on the table are still deserving of the appropriate treatment from humans. If there is what we call a humane treatment for humans, Pollan is trying to suggest a significant and similar action as counterpart on animals. This makes him a not so conservative advocate as far as the claim against animal consumption is concerned, but his points will give us enough understanding that humans have essential moral or ethical obligations towards animals. However, Pollan’s point is not so strong to lead us to a vegetarian lifestyle. On the contrary, Tom Regan is so strong with his sheer stand, that just like humans, animals have positive interests too. He remarkably creates a more philosophical argument in this claim, by defining what it means to be human, linking it to the point of defining human interest at its broadest term. One of his remarkable examples that is compelling and worthy of a response is the point that infants are humans too, but if being able to express through words might prove humans to have that positive interests they deserve, then infants who are not capable of using words might turn out to be like animals too that based on the human standards, are not able to use words, logic and higher form of thinking (Regan). Therefore, it is not safe to argue that expression is such a fundamental basis of the human right and the thing that makes individuals superior to animals. Even though animals are not able to express, but Regan believes that they too also have corresponding rights just as what infants deserve. Regan therefore is trying to emphasize the point that animals have the basic right to survive, which is technically the essence of their positive interests. Unlike Pollan, Regan is more serious in his view to promote the idea that animals’ interests should prevail, implying therefore that vegetarianism is the right way to take for the humanity. “The question of the obligatoriness of vegetarianism, in other words, can arise only if and when the animals we eat are the kind of beings who have interests” (Regan). Finally, just like Regan, Harriet Schleifer provides some remarkable arguments in order to convince the humanity that killing animals for our consumption is unethical. Schleifer has the same idea with Regan, acknowledging the thought that animals have the basic right they deserve, and that is the right to have their lives. In fact, here are the following arguments he carefully presents to the public (Schleifer). He personally believes that domestication is not a natural process, because it enslaves animals and subjecting their life processes to the human will. This is exploitation. Animal exploitation for Schleifer leads us to create two moral groups for animals: those who are not meant for abusive acts and those acceptable for exploitation in a benevolent manner. However, Schleifer makes it clear that animal exploitation is not just about killing them for food, but the manipulation of their genes for our use denying them of their freedom is far more abusive in essence. Therefore, Schleifer is strongly convincing us to reject animal exploitation and embrace the essential idea of ethical vegetarians. We just heard the varying ideas of the three authors giving sympathy for their claimed rights for the animals, but none of them, except Pollan presents the essential point that humans’ ability to domesticate animals and plants for our consumption is a significant component of the ecological structure, and to our moral obligation to our future generation. Polan believes that as far as animals kill each other, then there is no way that we cannot engage in that crucial activity since we are a higher form of animals in the food chain. Just like any living things, humans have to survive, and maintaining such life is eventually the moral obligation of the humanity to its future race. However, the three authors must substantially understand the point that not everything in this world should manifest equality together in the same measure, if we based it on the human standard and understanding. It is important to understand that not everything should be equal in size, shape, taste, smell, authority, privileges, authorities and more. This only means that there must be an inclusion of hierarchy, particularly in the food chain. This means that humans have higher authority over the animals and plants, but it is clear that it is their moral duty to see to it that they managed them responsibly. Domestication of animals and plants are the moral duty of man prior to the survival of the humanity. Therefore, it makes no difference if we cook plants and kill animals for our consumption considering that both these groups are the same living things, and it is primarily our moral obligation to the future to survive. Cited Works Pollan, Michael. An Animal’s Place. The New York Times Magazines, 10 Nov., 2002. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. . Regan, Tom. The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Tom Regan’s Animal’s Rights and Writes. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. . Schleifer, Harriet. Images of Death and Life: Food Animal Production and the Vegetarian Option. 1985. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. . Read More