Vegetarian Ecofeminist and Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

Ecofeminists should be Vegetarians. Introduction Environmental ethics is a discipline in philosophy which tries to explain the moral relationship of human beings, the moral status of the environment and its nonhuman contents. Its tries to incorporate traditional ethical theories like deontology, virtue ethics, environmental literature on wilderness and the contemporary environmental concerns (Carr 8). Feminist environmental ethics is one of the branches of environmental ethics which has being embedded in traditional western thinking. Ecofeminism is associated with the philosophical work of Carol Adams, Greta Gaard and Marti Kheel who argued that veganism is critical to Ecofeminist ethics (Carr 8). Ecofeminists who are ecologically-minded feminists have advanced the issue of vegetarianism as a moral outcome of feminism. Some feminists are not committal to Ecofeminist and even become hostile due to the fear that animal advocacy would affect the abortion debate (Gaard 107). In this paper, we shall analyze whether being Ecofeminist requires one to be a vegetarian. The first approach which ecofeminists advance is the moral standing of animals while the second approach is the “ethics of care” to the animals and the affectionate response to the animal well-being in case of suffering. The other approach which vegetarian ecofeminists approach the environmental ethics is the current meat production and consumption which takes place in the globe. Ecofeminists fuse feminist and ecological concerns hence incline towards animal protection since they recognize the historical oppression of women and nonhuman others and work to overcome such oppression in the society (Gaard 108). Being Ecofeminist requires one to be a vegetarian. Being an Ecofeminist not require one to be a vegetarian. Ecofeminists who have advanced vegetarianism mostly live in the first class nations. Even if ecofeminists were to agree on vegetables as the morally defensible food, some consequences would still arise. Feminism since 1960s have being involved in advancing greater reproductive freedom where abortion is practiced safely yet no one has lobbied on behalf of animal abortion and the possible implications (Gaard 237). The first argument is the moral standing of animals. If animals are wronged in a moral manner and humans have direct and indirect duty to treat the animals in a moral ways, it can be argued that humans have moral standing to nonhuman animals whether the duty is implied by their religion or beliefs. The guiding principle is the rationality and personhood. The principle argument of “marginal cases” points out that there are “marginal cases” of some human beings who are morally retarded, under-developed and mentally ill just the same way we have some animals that are highly intelligent with cognitive capabilities and also social towards the human beings. Cases of these animals include the whales and apes. Philosophers like Tom Regan are only concerned with avoiding the moral concern of animals. Carol Adams has objected to the popular ontologization of the animals we consume to be “meat” since there is no beef without a cow being slaughtered nor is their pork without slaughtering a pig (Gaard 124). According to Elly Haney, animals are denied the freedom of movement in the slaughter factories where they are confined in small spaces where they can hardly turn which he asserts as failure to respect the “self-determination” of others in which case here are the animals (Gaard 126). However, by setting capacities for subjectivity and self-determination, the ecofeminists should also include the “respect for life” and champion the welfare of other living things like bacteria, vegetables and viruses even if they are harmful to human beings. According to Augustinian view, animals lack the expression of language and reason hence they are subject to human beings but this is inconsistent since animals are able to communicate with each other through their physical expressions (Carr 133). Ecofeminists compare the animal pain to the fetal pain. John Hill concludes that the moral consistent vegetarians who oppose the slaughter of animals unless it is the last resort should also object elective abortion when the fetus becomes sentient. According to available data, seventy percent of the legal abortions in the US are conducted in the first fifteen weeks. The opponents of abortion do not consider the pain and suffering of the mother but advocate the “right to life” (Carr 136). Ecofeminists remain critical on the rights of animals like their sentient but the dilemma still remains on the domesticated animals which are bred for human consumption and benefit only. The moral pities for animals struggling for their survival and the avoidance of wastage of animals in to beef have being the grounds for the Ecofeminists well-being of the animals. On the contrary, Ecofeminists do remind us that we still provide the care for the animals since we admire them for the excellent characteristics like Cheetahs for their speeds and some zebras for their color mixture hence we should not go further to slaughter them. Human beings sometimes use massive resources in rescuing the health of the pets which they bred hence should not slaughter them for consumption (Carr 84). From the socio-political point of view, meat production is not a natural activity but it is culturally different activity. In most parts of the world, meat production and consumption is connected to masculinity where such meat eaters present images of strength which is a logic of domination which has being detrimental to the rights of women and other non-human animals (Adams 46). Ecofeminist vegetarians observe that women just like hens which are de-beaked during egg-laying period and dairy is the same as barren land and virgin forests. They assert that breeding animals for human consumption results in massive depletion of natural resources and pollution like the air and soil pollution. Some slaughter houses handle the meat in a way which encourages the breeding of pathogens (Adams 47). Confined animals generate a lot of waste which may be swept in to the rivers thus causing water pollution leading to diseases. An interesting observation is that ecofeminists postulate that it is the women who suffer from environmental pollution since some water pollutants may affect their reproductive system. Women employed in the slaughter houses often suffer respiratory complications, have poor working conditions and are prone to accidents in the slaughter houses (Adams 48). Some philosophers have argued that vegetarian Ecofemists rejection of meat slaughter is a great plan on environmental conservation and reduction in the social evils which why animal activists join hands with them in endorsing on plant-based diets in the world as the only “healthy diets for human beings and animals” which is not true given animals have sense of language and intelligent capabilities (Adams 12). Conclusion Vegetarian Ecofeminism continues to attract intense philosophical disagreement among different academicians like feminists and environmentalists. In my view, ecofeminists should be vegetarians due to the power of sympathy where seventy million animals are killed every year. Hens are de-beaked and kept in cages which are crowded which denies them their basic freedom of movements. Animals have sentient and feel pain just like animals hence they should not be slaughtered. Non-human Animals encounter a lot of abuses like tail docking, gassing, trapping, branding, castrating, de-beaking and confining due to lack of the moral care of human beings towards them. Ecofeminists should be vegetarians since massive slaughter of animals have negative impacts on the ecosystem through the pollution of rivers and likelihood of reproductive diseases to women. According to Carol Adams, the people with power who are associated with masculinity have always eaten meat hence it is imperative that if one is Ecofeminist he or she should be a vegetarian. The animals are absent from the act of eating meat since they have being transformed in to food hence there can no be beef without the slaughter of an animal. Ecofeminist criticize the lack of attention to bodies in most meat eating societies since they are degraded and abused where both women and animals are viewed as cheap labor and only a source of reproduction. Works Cited: Adams, Carol. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York. Continuum. 1990. Carr, Greta. New essays in Ecofeminist literary criticism. Canada. Associated University Press. 2000. Gaard, Greta. Ecofeminism: women, animals and nature. Philadelphia. Temple University Press. 1993. Warren, Keel. Ecofeminist philosophy: a western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Oxford. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2000. Read More