Meat Eating - a Necessary Evil - Essay Example

of due: Meat eating, a necessary evil. To consume meat or not to consume meat; this statement has been a debatable topic for as long as I can remember. Vegetarians have for a long time claimed that meat eating is “murder” since animals are slaughtered in a huge number to feed the world population with meat. Animal rights activists are not necessarily against meat eating but cruelty towards animals. According to (Sims, 5), ethics can simply be defined as the systemic reflection on the moral aspect of life and it’s conflicts. The question if it is ethical or unethical to eat meat has become a personal matter. The most fundamental issue on dietary ethics is that, for most people residing in the developed world, meat eating is not necessary for their survival or health. Therefore, it is concluded that killing animals just because they like the taste of animals is morally unjustifiable and wrong. However, the question that remains, “Is it really wrong to eat meat?” People have gone ahead to write about this issue one being Jay Bost who wrote an award winning article by the name “Give Thanks for Meat” and other writers like Singer, Peter and Mason who wrote the book “The Ethics of what we eat: why our food choices matter”. In both cases, the writers talk about the ethicality of meat eating and the killing of animals for meat. Both literatures show deep concern on the issue of animal welfare as they are converted to meat. The main variation between the two is Bost sees meat eating as a not so bad activity while Singer and the other writers have a firm stand on the unethically of meat eating. For this essay, I will be going by the thesis statement that meat eating is a necessary evil. This is because meat does have some nutritional value in for our bodies because meat provides use with protein that is much needed to repair worn out cells and replace dead ones in the body. Although I do not agree with animal mistreatment because is unnecessary and cruel, meat eating does not have to be put in the same category as animal mistreatment. It is obvious that the two writers have different philosophies on the issue of ethical dietary. Bost’s philosophy on meat eating is that it is not wrong or unethical if the meat is obtained in particular standards. He says, “Eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical”. Buying and consuming meat that comes from places where animals are mistreated and killed in abhorring methods is unethical because this shows support for this behavior that should be shamed and stopped. Animals that are well cared for and given ample space to roam about and enough food for the purpose meat provision should be a better choice. According to Bost, meat eating should not be dismissed as bad or unethical because it does not affect the biotic community in a negative way. Bost quotes Aldo Leopold’s land ethic that says, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” since the biotic community is not affected negatively by the consumption of animal meat it is therefore not bad. Humans, animals and plants coexist in the plant by benefiting from one another. This can be explained simply as humans depend on plants and animals for food to survive. Animals depend on plants to survive and plants depend on the sun. When humans and animals die, the soil gets fertile, and the plants benefit. Through this dependence, every living thing gets to be useful in one way or other for the survival of other living things. Therefore, eating animal meat is the least harm that any human being can cause to the biotic environment. Bost’s argument is logical in that meat eating does not necessarily mean that one supports the mistreatment of animals in the farm, but it is simply the carrying out of basic means of survival where living things depend on each other. Singer goes by the philosophy that meat eating is wrong since it is for this reason that farm animals are mistreated and slaughtered in very bad conditions. He is against how animals in the farm are kept in horrible conditions; chicken being put in one place in large numbers and other animals as pigs not allowed to roam about and cattle being forced to stand in small compartments such that they cannot even turn around. (Singer, 248) Says, “If the walls of farms and slaughter houses were made of glass, industrial agriculture might be redeemed. Some people might become vegetarians, but others, forced to raise and kill animals in a place where they can watch would do it with more consideration for the animals, as well as the eater.” This shows that animals are raised and killed in a way that leaves a lot to be preferred. In a very difficult debate (Singer, 252) says, “Eating meat from farms that give pigs a good life cannot be bad for the pigs, since if no one ate meat, these pigs would not exist, killing them must be justifiable” he later says that this reasoning is dangerous since it is a utilitarian argument for meat eating and utilitarian can use it to justify the killing of retarded orphans. According to Singer, there is no one good enough reason or justification for meat eating. The issue of land use is another aspect that makes meat eating badly. This is because a lot of land is used for grazing and animal keeping where so many animals feed on the vegetation and leave the land bare causing erosion. (Singer, 254) Says, “by calculating the amount of land that could be allowed to return to forest or become some other kind of natural habitat and the number of wild birds and animals who would live on that land would be high, but even greater if we obtained protein from plants rather than from animals.” Singer does raise a number of good points on this issue, and a lot needs to be changed in the animal farm industry. The two writers’ philosophies do touch on the principle of justice. Bost’s philosophy touches of justice in terms of fairness in animal rearing for meat production. He seeks to encourage the consumption of meat from farmers who treat their animals in a good manner and the shunning of meat produced by farmers who use unjust ways and treat their animals cruelly. Singer, on the other hand, does not condone the consumption of meat, and for him justice is not eating meat at all because by eating meat, animals are killed and that is injustice. The principle of serving the greater good has also been represented in these philosophies. According to Bost, meat eating is serving the greater good since all living things depend on each other directly or indirectly and meat eating does not affect the biotic community negatively. Singer sees this differently in that if human beings are treated special, why the same gesture can’t be extended to animals as well in the name of serving the greater good. As I said earlier, meat eating is a personal issue. Bost has no problem of meat eating as long as it does not cause harm to the biotic community and as long as the animals are not mistreated in the process. He gives freedom to people to choose to eat or not to eat meat, and he urges for good animal rearing. Singer sees meat eating as the reason of all-evil in animal mistreatment, and he prefers for people to find alternative methods of feeding since it is not crucial for people in the developed world to consume animal meat. I identify more to Bost since it is not bad to eat meat as long as the animals do not suffer for this course. Ethics dictate that we obtain our food in just and modest ways since we are civilized people. I would recommend that animal rights activists should be on the lookout and report any farmer who oppresses animals in the name of meat provision. Health inspectors should also inspect farms and the living conditions of the animals in it. After reading books on food ethics, I now have a better comprehension of the term and the rights of animals used as food. Works cited Jay Bost. Give thanks for meat. The New York Times. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/the-ethicist-contest-winner-give-thanks-for-meat.html?_r=0 Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale, 2007. Print. Sims, John G. What Is Ethics? Fort Worth, Tex: The author, 1937. Internet resource. Read More