Vegetarianism - Ethical Grounds, Merits & Demerits - Research Paper Example

Teacher’s No. Vegetarianism: Ethical Grounds, Merits & Demerits 0 Introduction Vegetarianism has been a much debated subject recently since it has its roots based in fundamental animal rights. There are various social concepts and theories which present different perspectives towards vegetarianism and its relation to acceptance of human rights. Some of these theories demand abandoning use of animals for scientific research and commercial activities. Many famous personalities and celebrities adopted vegetarianism and most of them based their personal philosophies for doing so on respect for human and animal life. However, there are strong arguments against this school of thought and a careful analysis of the ideologies behind vegetarianism and related theoretical arguments would reveal that humans have moral and ethical obligations towards animals which prohibit them from causing any unnecessary harm to them and also shunning the use of animals for research purpose and commercial activities, having serious social and economic repercussion along with health problems caused by complete vegetarianism. Therefore instead of adopting one extreme side a balanced approach towards animal rights should be adopted. 2.0 Literature Review Where vegetarianism is a socially accepted phenomenon, there are various reasons why many people opt for a vegan diet. Various researches have illustrated that due to social pressure, ethical consideration, religious teachings, health concerns, or desire to consume less of environmental resources are major causes for adopting a vegan diet (Harvard Women’s Health Watch). However, the most fundamental reason given for being a vegetarian is acceptance and respect for animal rights. Where the subject itself is controversial and has not gained a unanimous approach so far, it is still considered as the most valid argument. Other than acceptance of animal rights, religious consideration is also one of the most fundamental reasons. Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism have various sects that have made vegetarianism a building block of their religious beliefs. There is a strong belief that there is a connection between one’s diet and spiritual health (Tuttle 8). Where supporters of animal rights have asserted that animals must not suffer brutality of humans, extent and meaning of brutality is still subjected to critical reasoning. 2.1 Theoretical Perspectives There are different schools of thought in vegetarianism; some reject the idea of using animals for food, clothing and other purposes such as agriculture but accept the idea of using animals as a objects for scientific testing whereas others accept animals as the living things with complete rights of survival, healthy living and avoidance of any imposed suffering. There is no consistent approach which would define the holistic view of vegetarianism concerning animal rights. Being vegetarian is a choice stemming out of basic theory of rights. Cohen argues that morality is a contract signed by those who recognize it and this contract in turn, protects their rights. In simpler way, since humans are in a position of protecting their rights, therefore they can be excluded from inhumane treatment. On the other hand, since animals do not enjoy these liberties or coverage by any ethical body or law itself, therefore, they have to undergo torture and brutal activities of humans which not only results in a loss of life but also in a painful existence. This extension of human rights to animals only takes place when a specific human interest is vested in it. This is the reason why a particular pet animal may be close to its owner but can be treated badly by another individual. Through his article, Cohen demands that this contractarianism must serve as a shield of protection for animals as well on the rationale that everything with an inherent value must be covered under this regime of contractarianism. He further defines this inherent value through object’s ability of experiencing life since determining inherent value on the basis of intellect is subjected to judgment which lacks rationality. This inherent value compels humans to respect each other’s rights and since animal rights are an extension of human rights, therefore, animals must be allowed to enjoy the liberty granted to them. Where not eating animals is a matter of human choice, not using them for agriculture and science requires a broader approach. Recognizing this inherent value not only protects animals from brutality but also abandons their use for commercial agriculture and laboratory testing. This ideology is also supported by Jim Mason in his book Animal Factories which is an illustration regarding brutality shown towards animals during production processes. In contrast to Regan who has completely rejected the possibility of using animals for any commercial or scientific activity, Cohen has taken a rather balanced approach where he supports the use of animals for food, clothing and shelter, he also asserts the importance of substitution and relative reduction of animal testing in scientific researches and consistency in overall behavior towards animal rights. Cohen argues that using humans for scientific exploration and research is often perilous since there are inherent risks involved; knowing these facts, human life cannot be put into danger. However, with the passage of time, necessary effort must be made to ensure that suitable substitutes for testing are present but such kind of substitution requires time and research. Cohen disagrees with the possibility of reducing animal use for scientific research. He argues that employing animal subjects is costly and has its demerits; there will always be experiments where human subjects will be used since there anatomy is more feasible for the purpose but wherever these risks can be transferred from humans to animals, use of animals should be enhanced to mitigate any possible hazards. Cohen also supports Regan ideology of animal rights in his own way. He rejects the possibility of any human rights since it is a claim that one part can be used against the other. Since animals lack this ability, therefore no rights can be guaranteed. Similarly, the perceived value of avoidable suffering also lack rationality. He acknowledges the idea of moral obligation towards animals but refuses to accept any moral equality. Where Cohan and Regan adopt sociological view while taking their stance on animal rights, Peter Singer solely bases his argument on morality. According to Singer, there is an accepted hierarchical model in human society and it is an acclaimed fact that humans do vary from each other in many ways considering their physical outlook and mental capability. Therefore, the belief that one group of human is equals to other, fails to recognize these pre-existing differences. Hence, if women’s demand for equal rights is accepted, it should be reciprocated to men as well therefore even men should be allowed to have a choice of abortion, therefore, human equality is not an acceptable phenomenon. If it is accepted, then its extension to animal rights must also be recognized. The racism and sexism phenomenon are the basic grounds which project Singer’s claim as a moral one without any factual grounds. Singer has argued that granting rights to animals does not make them equals to human. On the contrary, it asserts that substantial rights should be associated to animals and they should be exercised in a rather fair manner. Careful analysis of Singer’s argument presents a single notion that animals do deserve a certain degree of respect but what will be the extent of these rights is still questionable. Equality of consideration is the only criteria that can explain the rationality of these rights (Singer 149). 2.2. Influential Vegetarian Personalities There are many famous personalities in history that adopted vegetarianism and have acted as role models for many. One of these famous personalities is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; he has been a role model for millions all over the world, not only for his contribution in the development of sub-continent of Asia but also for his various philosophies. His most fundamental principle was tolerance towards others and expression of non-violence towards other living things which includes humans and animals. Although Gandhi’s vegetarianism is often underestimated since it is one of the basic concepts in Hinduism but Gandhi’s idea of vegetarianism was rooted in ethics instead of religion as he was a non-vegetarian in his adolescence. According to Roberts (7), Gandhi showed respect for all living things and believed that display of violence towards living things is the start of massive social destruction. Furthermore, there was also an economic rationale behind his vegetarianism. He believed that violence leads to inequality of resources which then gives birth to more social evils. In addition to that, a strong faith in Karma and rebirth added more strength into his pre-established ideology. It was Gandhi’s belief that God exists in all beings with philosophies of non-violence and non-abundance that acted as the foundation of vegetarianism (Roberts 31). Another important historical personality is Dr. Albert Schweitzer, his vegetarianism was based on the feeling of reverence for life and he considered flesh eating not in accordance with true and finer form of humanity (Dr. Albert Schweitzer, n.p). Similarly, Cesar Chavez who had been a strong advocate of fundamental human rights, equality, unity and environment, he was also in favor of human rights due to which he became vegetarian. According to Chavez, “Kindness and compassion towards all living beings is a mark of a civilized society; racism, economic deprival, dog fighting and cock fighting, bullfighting and rodeos are all cut from the same defective fabric: violence. Only when we have become nonviolent towards all life will we have learned to live well ourselves (Brook n.p).” A careful analysis of all these famous personalities would reveal that their philosophy behind vegetarianism was based on non-tolerance towards violence and value for life not just human but for every living being but the factors leading to this regime were different. Gandhi was provoked by religion; Cesar had sociological objectives whereas Schweitzer was influenced by his life-long research on Christianity followed by the concept of ‘reverence for life’. Cesar strongly condemned any bias on the basis of social hierarchy and his valuation of humans as equal beings was extended to animals as well. He was also a strong supporter of environmentalism and believed that the environment has to be in balance which further led to advocacy for animal rights. Although their personal ideologies stemmed out of variable personal beliefs but they all have considered violence and explicit brutality towards animals as the fundamental ground for other social disturbances. Other than these famous personalities, there are many more celebrities who have shown their support to PETA and have opted for vegetarianism. 2.3 Demerits of Vegetarianism Although vegetarianism has become a socially accepted phenomenon and is gaining more popularity, however there are also various drawbacks of excluding meat completely from one’s diet. It is argued that most of the nutrients which are present in meat, poultry, dairy and sea food are also present in pulses, lentils and other vegetables but the composition amount varies to a large extent. Therefore, special consideration and higher food intake is required to maintain the overall health. Furthermore, social isolation is another important factor which influences the continuity of vegetarianism. Furthermore, there are various researches which have shown that complete abandoning of animal-related food from one’s diet has serious consequences on the bones structure and internal immunity, health of children if they are vegetarian and also if their mothers were ones during pregnancy. Lack of vitality, lower body temperatures, libido loss, arthritis, hair and nails problem, dental issues, loss of weight, weak digestive system and menstrual cycle issues are some of the common problems observed in vegetarians. Although being vegetarian also reduces chances of heart problems, cancer and other cholesterol related health conditions but the health issues caused by complete avoidance of non-vegetarian food leads to critical deficiency in overall body health (The Deadly Dangers of Veganism n.p). 3.0 Discussion An inquiry in to the historical development of vegetarianism reveals that the basic reason behind its spread is acceptance of animal rights. Whereas there are strong arguments in favor and against these rights, all schools of thought condemn causing unnecessary harm to the living beings mainly animals. A complete vegetarian approach itself is divided into those who support use of animals for scientific research but consider intake of food comprising of animal flesh inappropriate and also those who believe that animals must not be harmed in any way. While considering the rights of animals, it is important to calculate the overall sociological, economic and political cost. Without addition of animals into scientific researches and other commercial activities, overall economic cycle can become deformed. There are various medical researches that cannot be conducted on human subjects due to potential risks during experimentation; hence they will remain inconclusive if complete vegetarian approach is adopted. Majority of current scientific cures for dangerous diseases and other advancements such as skin and food products are direct results of animal testing. Therefore, completely abandoning use of animals for well-being of humans and society has an enormous cost which cannot be paid at this point in time. However, attempts need to be made to ensure that use of animals in research should be substituted with better objects gradually. Furthermore, brutal activities such as confinement of animals in small places, malnutrition and torture must be avoided and discouraged at all levels. This idea is further strengthen by the work of Jeffery Masson. Masson’s book illustrates the life and emotions of animals and claims that animals especially farm animals have feelings that are highly influenced by their living conditions. Where Cohen has argued that everything that responds to nature and environment possess rights, Masson’s work provides support to his argument by ensuring that animals have feelings like humans, therefore any action that causes harm to their physical and mental well-being should be avoided. As far as using animals for food and necessities is concerned, eating flesh is a matter of personal choice which has now turned, into a social regime. But while adopting vegetarianism, its impact on health and other social consequences must be considered. Instead of taking extreme sides, a balanced approach is a better solution as suggested by Regan. Unless a non-brutal approach is adopted towards animals, vegan population would further increase with hoards of supporters for animal rights. 4.0 Conclusion Vegetarianism has been a crucial subject when it comes to animal rights. There are many celebrities and famous historical personalities which have adopted it as a way of life and have acted as role models for many but the approach itself has many merits and demerits. There are various theoretical arguments which illustrate that adopting complete vegetarianism has enormous social and economic costs since it restricts the use of animals for any scientific and commercial purpose. Furthermore, adopting this philosophy as a way of life is laborious and has considerable repercussion related to health. Therefore, instead of completely excluding animals out of human social and industrial cycle, a suitable approach which rejects possibility of inhumane treatment including abhorrent living conditions, lack of nutrition, and torture is required with acceptance for the use of animals for constructive purposes. Extremism towards or against vegetarianism would result in complete jam of industrial and pharmaceutical research or form a violent society with no moral values and consideration for better treatment of animals. Works Cited Brook, Dan. Cesar Chavez and Comprehensive Rights. animal liberation front. 2007. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Cohen, Carl. “The case for the use of animals in biomedical research.” New England Journal of Medicine 315: 865-870. “Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1975-1965).” International Vegetarian Union. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Mason, Jim. Animal Factories. Three Rivers Press, 1990. Print. Masson, Jeffrey M. The Pig Who Sang to the Moon: The Emotional World of Farm Animals. New York: Ballantine-Random House, 2003. Print Regan, Tom. “The case for animal rights.” Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Ed. Tom Regan and Peter Singer. Prentice Hall, 1989. Roberts, Holly Harlayen. Gandhi The Vegetarian. Anjeli Press, 2007. Print. Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989. Print. “The Deadly Dangers of Veganism”. International Natural Hygiene Society. 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Tuttle, Will. World Peace Diet: Eating for Spiritual Health and Social Harmony. Lantern Books, 2005. Print. Read More