The morality of vegetarianism - Essay Example

?The morality of vegetarianism In recent years, there have been a number of arguments over the issue of vegetarianism and the justifications for the case of eating meat. The arguments presented for and against vegetarianism rise from the moral, ethical, humanitarian and prudential arguments for animal care. All the arguments presented have some sort of basis, therefore, this paper will seek to support the moral argument for vegetarianism by supporting the views of Regan and Singer; two arguments that purport that morally, the concern for animal health is paramount and should be taken into consideration when considering the lives of animals. The salient opinion in this paper is that it is morally wrong to use animals as a source of sustenance for humans, since the animals also have a moral right to co-exist with humankind. The first argument is that practices that inflict suffering on other organisms in this world are morally wrong, since, according to ethical considerations, all organisms in the world have a right to co-exist and depend on each other. The utilitarian argument (Singer 167) proposes that the suffering of an individual should not be perpetrated by any other individual; on the contrary, an individual should work to alleviate the suffering seen by any other organism. Therefore, it would be expected that an individual would not perpetuate the suffering of an animal for sustenance, instead, the human individual should give due consideration to animals. This argument shows that animals have just as much rights to existence as a human individual, therefore, it is expected that they be accorded some moral rights (George 19). The principle of equality implied in this argument transcends all consideration for sustenance, since it is expected that an individual would consider all the aspects of morality before partaking of animal flesh. However, this argument only considers animals that are killed by human actions, specifically for sustenance. This means that the argument fails to account for animals that die natural deaths or that die out of accidents. For example, from this position, an individual can argue that it is not morally wrong to partake of an animal that died from an accident. The morality argument is further supported by the view that partaking of meat is not important; humankind eats meat only as a form of dietary luxury (Chadwick and Schroeder 142). This argument indicates that the need for animal nutrients is not an important factor, since the nutrients can be replaced by vegetable nutrients (Singer 172). The dietary needs of a human individual can be completely met by using vegetarian diets and nutrients, therefore, the need for animal killing can be explained as form of luxury. Thus, it can be deduced that humankind has no real basis for insisting on animal flesh consuming, since the sustenance gotten from meat can be replaced in some form. Stephens (8) also supports this argument in his summary of the arguments for vegetarianism, stating that there is no conclusive evidence that not eating meat will adversely affect an individual. Curtin (242) states that moral vegetarianism is an issue that should be taken into consideration by humankind when deciding on the source of sustenance, since it is expected that an individual will consider the type of nutrients sought from an animal. The moral argument for vegetarianism can also be supported by considering the feminist considerations for vegetarianism, arguments that purport that animal cruelty is supported by male individuals as a means of supporting some sort of anti-feminism. Curtin (244) introduces the issue of eco-feminism, and goes on to state that the care approach introduced by eco-feminism is a defense of the ethics behind vegetarianism. This view can be supported by Singer’s theory of morality, where the equality debate is introduced. According to Singer (170), equality is a form of morality, and the concern for all individual and organisms should not be based solely on their physical attributes. This theory introduces the issue of speciesism, which can be ultimately defended just like racism and sexism. As already stated, some people will consider animal cruelty, or speciesism, to be some for of advanced sexism, since an animal should be accorded some right as a living organism. This indicates the importance of humanitarian consideration in dietary choice. The moral argument for vegetarianism is mostly based on the equality argument, which indicates that, since all human beings are considered to have an equal right to life, animals should also be accorded the right (Regan 159). The fact that an individual has complete right to life is supported by law, and it is entirely unacceptable fro an individual to slaughter another individual for the intrinsic benefits of the act. No law will allow an individual to participate in routine slaughter of any other individuals, since it is expected that all individuals have some ethical or legal consideration for their actions. Since the equality argument can be logically extended to animal life, it is entirely unacceptable that humankind completely disregards the issue of equality and routinely use animals for food. This implies a violation of fundamental right to life, since an animal’s life is worthwhile, perhaps as mush as the human life is worthwhile. Since there is no plausible counter-argument against the issue of animal right to equality, this argument can be considered valid; therefore, the moral argument for vegetarianism is justified. The last moral issue is one proposed by Singer (173) and supported by Curtin (244). It's the issue of factory farming and the effects that it has on animal life. The use of animals as a source of sustenance requires large-scale production; therefore, the animals are kept in unnatural conditions, resulting in a complete breach of ethical considerations. For example, commercial production of meat products requires that animals are kept in cages and fed according to the whims of a caretaker. This means that the rights of these animals are violated, resulting in a breach of moral standards. The trivial interest that humans have on animal food leads to untoward selfish intentions, which introduces factory farming and rearing of animals, which in turn leads to the suffering of animals without any real basis. Since factory farming is morally wrong, by extension, humankind should not perpetuate it by partaking of animal products. Works Cited Chadwick, Ruth, and Schroeder Doris. Applied Ethics: Critical Concepts in Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print. Curtin, Deane. Contextual Moral Vegetarianism. Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care. Hypathia, 6 (1991): 68-71. Print. George, Kathryn. Animal, Vegetable, Or Woman?: A Feminist Critique Of Ethical Vegetarianism. New York: SUNY Press, 2000. Print. Regan, Tom. “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism.” Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Ed. Kenny Walters and Lisa Portmess. New York: SUNY Press, 1999: 153-163. Print. Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Ed. Kenny Walters and Lisa Portmess. New York: SUNY Press, 1999: 165-175. Print. Stephens, William. Five Arguments for Vegetarianism. 2002. Web. October 27, 2011. Read More