The Ethical Questions Surrounding Vegetarianism - Essay Example

The Ethical Questions Surrounding Vegetarianism The decision to adopt a vegetarian diet remains a controversial one for many people in the United States and around the world. Those who support the vegetarian lifestyle are vocal about the health benefits of a plant-based diet, while others worry that becoming a vegetarian will result in dietary problems from lack of important nutrients. Some choose the vegetarian lifestyle for religious reasons as they find it wrong to eat the flesh of animals. But for many, the decision to adhere to a vegetarian diet comes down not to a matter of nutrition, but a question of ethics. Vegetarians often cite their love for animals as a reason to reject a meat-eating lifestyle, claiming that slaughtering animals for the purposes of consumption is morally objectionable. Still others argue that meat consumption contributes to environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation, and the exploitation of natural resources in the interests of raising feed crops as opposed to more sustainable crops. Whatever the reason, the ethical dilemmas surrounding vegetarianism continue to foster debate among people who wholeheartedly embrace a meat-eating diet and those who condemn the consumption of meat as being morally and ecologically detrimental. It is important to note that there are several levels of vegetarianism by which one can decide to live. The catch-all term “Vegetarian” indicates that a person’s diet does not include the flesh of animals, but the label does allow that animal by-products, such as gelatin, dairy foods, and eggs, can be consumed. Within the vegetarian label, there are several sub-categories. “Lacto-ovo” (or “ovo-lacto”) vegetarians eat dairy and eggs, while “ovo-vegetarians” do not eat dairy, and “lacto-vegetarians” eschew eggs. There is even a category of dieters referred to as “pescetarians,” who consume fish and other seafood but no other meats (though many vegetarians do not consider pescetarianism to be “true” vegetarianism). “Vegan” is the one of the strictest forms of vegetarianism, as adherents do not eat meat or any animal by-product—this includes the aforementioned dairy and egg products, but also includes any animal-produced food such as honey. But there are offshoots of veganism that are even stricter: fruitarians, for example, only eat fruits, seeds, and nuts in an effort to avoid harming plant life, and su vegetarianism not only prohibits the consumption of animal products, but also forbids the eating of all varieties of onion and garlic—essentially, any vegetable that produces an odor. The decision about which path of vegetarianism an individual may take depends on several factors, including concerns about health and weight-related issues and religious beliefs—for example, su vegetarianism is synonymous in many parts of the world with the Buddhist faith. But arguably the greatest influences on a person’s decision to “go veggie” are questions of morality and ethical behavior. The predominant motivation for many vegetarians is the preservation of animal life. Many vegetarians believe that killing animals for the purpose of eating them is wrong, because animals are living creatures and should be afforded the same right to live as human beings. As David DeGrazia states, “[A]nimals are not mere resources for our use, playthings for our amusement, or even practicing grounds for good behavior towards other humans. They count for something in their own right” (148). Because animals have this “moral status” in our world, DeGrazia argues, “it’s wrong to cause extensive, unnecessary harm” to them (149). Abuse of animals is a hot-button topic. Whenever dogs or cats are shown in the aftermath of severe abuse, the public outcry can be deafening, with hundreds of people condemning the abusers while volunteering to shelter the defenseless animal. Yet there is generally not a similar outcry when it comes to the slaughter of animals for meat consumption, because many people are not educated about the current predominant methods of animal farming. The rise in industrialized or “factory” farms has contributed to the mistreatment of farm animals since the days following World War II. These farms are designed “to raise as many animals as possible in the smallest possible space in order to lower costs and maximize profits” (DeGrazia 150). The methods by which these animals are raised and slaughtered are not fully regulated, and according to some slaughterhouse employees, the rules of the federal Humane Slaughter Act, which purportedly serves to ensure that animals are killed humanely, are “rarely enforced” (151) and “violations occur regularly” (152). This lackadaisical approach to animal slaughter enrages some pro-animal, pro-vegetarian groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which has become notorious in recent years for increasingly bold stunts and undercover investigations through which the group attempts to raise awareness of farming practices. In 2004, this culminated in an eight-month investigation of Pilgrim’s Pride, the slaughterhouse which provided the chickens for the Kentucky Fried Chicken chain of restaurants. Donald G. McNeil, Jr. reported the investigation showed that employees were “stomping on live chickens, and flinging dozens into a wall,” and also revealed that some workers had “tor[n] the head off a chicken to write graffiti, strangled a chicken with a latex glove, [and] squeezed birds until they exploded.” The random acts of cruelty recorded by the investigation only served to underscore PETA’s point: if animals must give their lives for human sustenance, they must be treated humanely, with proper respect and dignity. Many in the meat industry, however, point to the antics at Pilgrim’s Pride as being an unfortunate isolated incident, and contend that most industrialized farms treat their animals equitably and fairly in accordance with state, federal, and ethical law. Beyond the farm, many animal-lovers decry hunting as also being unethical in its treatment of animals. While some hunters kill animals merely for sport, in order to have a severed animal head to mount on their walls, others consume the product of their kills. Donald W. Bruckner considers the latter to be a morally-responsible act, and even goes so far as to claim that, from an ethical standpoint, eating meat that has resulted from the “fair chase” hunting of sustainable herds “is morally preferable to eating meat that has been farm-raised” (312). His reasoning stems from a comparison to factory farms, wherein the animals have been penned and caged from birth; in the wild, Bruckner explains, on the average, animals live stress-free—at least until they are pegged by the hunter—do not have to deal with the fear caused by transportation to the slaughter, and their deaths are generally more humane (315). Despite the comparative moral implications of hunting versus farming, however, many vegetarians contend that the killing of any animal is ethically irresponsible and wrong, regardless of however “humanely” they may have been slaughtered. Beyond issues of the morality of killing animals, many vegetarians choose to adopt the lifestyle in response to environmental concerns. According to Michael Allen Fox, there are three major ways in which the heavy consumption of meat negatively affects the environment. First, there is a great deal of wastefulness in regards to energy and resources in conjunction with meat production. Fox reports that not only is “264.5 million tons of grain … fed to livestock in the United States annually—enough to feed approximately 800 million people a vegetarian diet,” but also, “26,425 gallons of water are required in the overall process by which 2.2 pounds of beef is produced” (70). The numbers, by any calculation, are staggering, indicating that the nation’s dependence on the farming of animals for food could be replaced quite handily if people were willing to embrace a wholly vegetarian diet. Secondly, Fox addresses the “eco-destructive side of the meat industry’s operations” (71). The author provides a laundry list of negative effects on the environment as a result of non-sustainable factory farming practices: These effects include toxic chemical residues in the food chain, pharmaceutical additives in animal feeds, polluting chemicals and animal wastes from feedlot runoff in waterways and underground aquifers, topsoil loss caused by patterns of relentless grazing, domestic and foreign deforestation … and ozone depletion owing to the extensive use of fossil fuels and to the significant production of methane gas by cattle. (71) This systematic degradation of the planet’s natural resources represents an ethical issue for some people who contend that humanity has a responsibility to preserve and protect the environment. Vegetarianism is presented as an individual solution to these issues because reducing one’s own meat consumption contributes to the overall lessening of negative environmental effects. Finally, Fox examines the effects of meat production on biodiversity. He draws a direct link between the continued destruction of rainforests and wooded areas and problems with overfishing and the gradual extinction of certain species on the planet. When rainforests are cut down to provide grazing land for cattle, the cleared land is generally revealed to be “poor quality, unsustainable pastureland” that cannot support a herd, leading to more deforestation as more fertile land is sought for grazing purposes (72). Additionally, because fishermen in some parts of the world do not engage in sustainable fishing practices, some species of fish have died out or are constantly in danger of such. Because of the three environmental issues outlined in his argument, Fox proposes that a “commitment to vegetarianism seems clearly to be the best way to reduce the environmental harm and degradation caused by humans’ quest for nourishment” (73). Still, a worldwide, universal commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle is much easier said than done. Vegetarianism has become a more visible way of life in recent decades, but it continues to be a hotly-debated topic. The meat industry spends millions of dollars every year promoting the safety and benefits of eating meat, and interest groups such as PETA and the Vegetarian Resource Group spend just as much time and energy conversely educating people about vegetarianism as a viable and healthy lifestyle. Because everyone looks at the issue from a different ethical standpoint, there does not appear to be a “right” or “wrong” perspective on the issue. Instead, it comes down to an individual’s own moral compass—what does he feel is “right,” both ethically and physiologically, for him? Works Cited Bruckner, Donald W. “Considerations on the Morality of Meat Consumption: Hunted Game versus Farm-Raised Animals.” Journal of Social Philosophy 38.2 (2007): 311-330. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. DeGrazia, David. “Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 6.2 (2009): 143-165. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. Fox, Michael Allen. “The Contribution of Vegetarianism to Ecosystem Health.” Ecosystem Health 5.2 (1999): 70-74. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. McNeil, Donald G. Jr. “The Nation: Gaining Ground; At Last, a Company Takes PETA Seriously.” New York Times. New York Times. 25 July 2004. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. Read More