The Problem with Eating Animals - Essay Example

 The ethics of eating meat. In the society we live today meat eating is perceived as a normal thing and only few people stop to bother whether or not it is ethical-it is personal choice when it comes to eating meat. In this paper I will talk about the ethics of eating meat from personal point of view as well as looking at other peoples view on this topic. Meat eating should be governed by some standards just like consumption of other products has some ethics to it. In the world of nutrition and dietetics people are advised to eat meat to supplement the protein content in their bodies. Many writers have come up with various arguments to support their opinion about the ethics in eating meat/animal. Animal meat has been there for a long time and ethics to eat meat surfaced when people thought they are civilized enough. David Foster Wallace questions the ethics of boiling sentiment creatures alive just for our gustatory pleasure. He considers it cruel and uncomfortable[Dav04] .Eating animals’ meat serves a lot of benefits to human survival as initial man survived on meat and plant during the hunter gatherer period [Mar].Meat is consumed to provide man with nutrition as it is under care of human. Meat is majorly believed to provide much of the proteins in human diet. However, cereals such as beans, green grams and peas provide proteins. The relationship between man and animal was instantiated by God and therefore man has the right to eat animal meat whenever they feel like since the mandate to take care of animals was given by God in Genesis1:28. In Genesis 9:3 humans can legitimately kill and eat animal meat since they are given the mandate to use as food everything that lives and moves about. “Every living and moving thing will be food for you; I give them all to you as before I gave you all green things” (Bible, 2011). Considering food intake should be in harmony with natural order, it is okay to eat animal meat because that balances the ecological system by creating food chains which maintains nature. Too many animals conflict with humans and therefore resulting to undesirable natural order. Animals tries to find their daily diets by grazing around and they might end up destroying plantations like it has been witnessed before where animals such as elephants invade plantations in search of food. This is due to their large numbers that has led to small grazing grounds. As described in the bible, animals are created to be ruled and eaten by man. Having feelings for animals implies that we regard them as humans which should not be the case since naturally humans were created to depend on animal meat as a source of food. Writers argue that eating meat violates animal rights, reason being they have life [Dav04]. I doubt that animals have the same feeling as humans and therefore eating animal meat is perfectly okay since they do not have a structured life as humans do. Eating meat does not compromise the integrity and stability of human environment. It is therefore not wrong to eat meat since the order is still maintained-it is ethical. Humans do eat meat out of necessity and not pleasure therefore this is morally accepted. This is a self-preservation mechanism which is meant to preserve life. Just like shooting someone in self-defense is not the same as killing someone for sadistic reason therefore in the same way killing animals for our survival when we have no other choice is okay. Although we have plants that have high protein content such as beans and peas, it is justifiable to eat animal meat when the supply of plant protein is limited. On the other hand animal meat is consumed for more than just proteins. This is because of other national benefits that animal meat offers such as minerals and essential fats omega three fats. Animals are less morally important than humans and the idea of whether or not to eat them becomes a debatable issue at times when self-interests come to play [Dav04]. Wallace says that the animal eating issue is not only complex but also uncomfortable for him just like it is for anyone who enjoys eating a variety of food and does not want to see themselves as cruel or unfeeling. He prefers not to think about the issue of animal eating as a way of dealing with this conflict[Dav04]. Animal rights activists claim that higher non-human animals have right but they do not mention small animals such as small fish and lobsters. This argument is not substantial enough to protect all animals since it excludes other small animals such as fish, chicken and lobsters which David Foster questions why we do not use euphemisms to mention their names like we do with pork and beef to separate the meat from the creature that it was[Dav04]. He questions that “ is it significant that “lobster”, “fish”, and “chicken” are our cultures words for both the animal and the meat, whereas most mammals seem to require euphemisms like “beef”, and “pork” that help us separate the meat we at from the living creature the met once was? Is this evidence that some kind of deep unease about eating higher animals is endemic enough to show up in English usage, but the unease diminishes as we move out of the mammalian order?”[Dav04]. Personally, I consider it morally right and ethical to consume meat because it is the ancient way of human survival. If humans empathize with animals for being killed for food then they should consider it unethical to kill plants for food since plants too are alive and they do feel pain when they are killed or cut down for food. Work Cited Dav04: , (Wallace ,9), Mar: , (DeMello ,66-67), Dav04: , (Wallace ,5), Dav04: , (Wallace ,5), Dav04: , (Wallace ,10), Read More