Reference no: EM13801480

Ethics of Eating Meat

The world has evolved across various angles and over time. In fact, the notion of evolution could be pointed towards a course that dictates a change of heart or ideas. In most instances, it is not just the environment around us that changes, people also adapt to change. It is evident from the different types of people that we are able to meet on a daily basis.

In such evolution of ideas and development, people have a tendency to develop unique persuasions or even motivations. There are those who have an inclination towards furthering certain ideals. Such orientations define the various agitations that people have sought to further and advance. On one end, we have seen sexual health agitators who argue and advocate for sexual liberalism. One of the most powerful upcoming agitation agendas is the need to agitate for ethical behavior in our eating habits. The aspect that seems to be holding a lot of sway in this whole endeavor is the notion of eating meat. There are two groups pitted against each other arguing for and against the merits of consumption of meat. This paper emphasizes on this aspect and seeks to interrogate the ethical notions behind eating meat. There will also be a discussion on the religious angle that has also, to some extent, sought to fuel the debate.

Meat is acquired from animals that have to be slaughtered for the objective to be achieved. The act of slaughtering these animals means that death is an inevitable consequence of meat eating. Most people cannot bring themselves to reconcile with the fact that meat eating seems to indirectly glorify the random killing of animals for human gratification.

It is on this basis that this group of people has established that there is no ethical basis for engaging in the consumption of meat (Lusk and Norwood 109). It presents one face of the argument, merely on the face of it.
According to Sachin Maharaja (n.p), a healthy eating advocate that seeks to advance a cause against the eating of meat by humans, there should be a justification behind the act of eating meat acquired through cruelty to animals. It is importation to appreciate that cruelty in this case is subjective given that it is a personal opinion expressed by the advocate. Sachin (n.p) asserts that humans should be in a position to justify their actions of consuming meat without having to advance or base their argument on the natural order or cause of things (Sachin, n.p).

Satin argues that humans derive so much pleasure from the act of consuming meat. The lingering question that should then follow after such disposition is whether such pleasure should be derived from as painful a process as that which the animals have to undergo for the meat to be acquired. Does the pain and torture that animals undergo during slaughter justify the joy derived from the consumption of such products thereafter? (Kristof, n.p)

The argument by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times seeks to place this whole argument into perspective. Kristof's article, The Unhealthy Meat Market, begins by alluding to the mind-boggling statistics that are recorded in America's largest meat Factory,

Tysons. According to the editorial, Tysons, the major meat supplier in the entire nation slaughters upwards of 100,000 heads of cattle and up to 46 million chickens to meet the demand. The first question posed therefrom is whether such actions work to advance the cause of meat eating in the U.S (Kristof, n.p). The answer to that question is simple, ideally, even if the company failed to meet its meat-targets, Americans would seek an alternative source. For this reason, the problem or the grund norm in the meat-eating campaign is not the company that slaughters the animals but the people who consume the said meat.

Numerous ethical concerns arise in the face of such practices as the slaughtering and consumption of meat. Ideally, the animal rights activists argue that most animals, if not all are treated with contempt and without the underlying nation that pain and torture are universal aspects that go beyond the human race (Santina 30-35)

The ethical considerations of consuming meat do not stem only from the act of slaughtering the animals but also from the manner in which those animals are developed and nurtured. According to Kristof (n.p), the American meat factory has been at the forefront of leading the onslaught against any ounce of ethical considerations on meat consumption. Research has proven that the price of chicken meat has drastically reduced by more than 80% from the 1930s. The main reason for this drastic reduction is the fact that research and refined scientific techniques have made it possible to rear the chicken at a much lower cost and at an accelerated rate.

Most chickens reared for the American meat industry are bred to suffer; they are offered no respite, in fact, research has established that most chickens reared in such a manner are meant to develop large breasts by the time they hit their adult stage. Such large breasts cause them to topple over due to the added weight, a ground that could be labeled unethical and unconscionable from an animal rights activist's perspective (Kristof, n.p). The animal's suffering does not end with the breeding but continues even to the slaughterhouse where the meat companies do not feel the obligation to ensure that such animals are treated humanely and in a manner that guarantees of their safety.

The ethics of eating meat are not limited to the act of slaughtering the animals. Most vegetarians argue that their acts of refraining from meat eating are motivated by the inherent need to care for the environment. The underlying argument that has been passed by a majority of such vegetarians is that every person living in the world today has the ethical duty to ensure the sustenance of the environment and to carry themselves in a manner that ensures such sustainability (Blackwell and Van de Velde 4)

Animals bred for meat tend to consume a large amount of vegetation, at least according to the vegetarian argument. In this regard, actions of advocating for lesser meat consumption would ensure that such environmental depletion is placed at the bare minimum. There have been various statistics that seek to prove and or support this argument. Ideally, the fact of the matter is that one sixth of an acre of land is enough to feed a vegetarian for an entire year. On the flip side, around three acres would be required to produced enough feed to enable the average meat eater get his share of the meat at the end of the year (Kristof, n.p).

The vegetarian moral and ethical argument is founded on the notion and fact that killing is wrong and unwarranted. Ideally, most vegetarians, while arguing for the cause of environmental preservation will pass the argument that it is inherently barbaric for an individual to advance the cause of meat eating and slaughtering of animals. The barbaric nature of this act, at least according to the animal rights activists, and the vegetarians are that the entire process is bloody, unwarranted, and particularly brutal (Kristof, n.p).

Most of the proponents of this position argue that the moral and ethical obligation underlying the taking of an action of such magnitude is the need for the subject of such cruel actions to be fully aware of the inherent dangers. Drawing from this argument, the animals in question do not have the power of reasoning granted to man. For this reason, they cannot comprehend the motivation behind their acts of being slaughtered (Nobis 2). This does not, however, mean that the animals do not have the ability of intuition. Most of these animals can sense danger and they can sense when they are about to be killed and this should be the main ground for fighting against the slaughtering of animals in any manner.

There have been various rebuttals to this argument as posited by vegetarians. They have advanced the notion that even the vegetarian lifestyle involves some aspect if killing or even causing death to the animals. At least according to the position furthered by these notions, plants are living organisms and their consumption, therefore, entails the killing of an living organism. In addition, the preparation of a ground for the planting of these plants causes the death of various living organisms (Nobis 3-7). The motivation behind this argument is to place forth the assertion that killing of animals or causing their death is an action that is inevitable by all circumstances.

Despite the ethical notions thrown around by the animal rights activists, there also exist religious undertones against the practice of meat consumption. Most of the religions that place a keen emphasis on the idea of purity and piety like Buddhism place enough emphasis on a pure diet. In most cases, the idea of a pure diet is that devoid of any components of meat or meat products (Santina 67-75).

The general notion of Hinduism and the truisms that support the crux of the religion is that vegetarianism is a virtue. Hinduism, as a lifestyle, supports the notion of vegetarianism for three basic reasons; one is the inherent principle of non-violence. Acts of meat eating are preceded by various actions, which could be labeled as inherently violent (Abhedananda 3).

Violence and cruelty to animals is thus expressly prohibited and forbidden in the Hindu teachings. Secondly, the Hindu offering to the Deity should be "pure" food. Pure in this sense would be indicative of a vegetarian diet. Thirdly, there is also the motivation driven from the spiritual teachings that a vegetarian diet is healthy and good for the soul, a meat diet, on the other hand has been found to be dangerous to the mind and it hinders spiritual development (Santina 32-34). Various other religious inclinations work to guide the faithful on various dietary guidelines, especially with regard to the notion of consuming meat. The Muslims have developed their own code by establishing the halal policy.

This policy seeks to guide the faithful on various type of food and meat that are allowed under their religion.

The ethics of eating meat and the religious undertones that follow the principles that piety and observance of the laws and spiritual guidance should entail a strict observance of the rules. According to the Buddhist teachings, the vow of compassion is one of the central aspects (Santina 65-68). Compassion, in this sense, could be construed in various forms, the act of pouring or causing innocent blood to be poured would be an indicator as to the lack of compassion. It, therefore, is understood that there is a need to demonstrate compassion by ensuring that at all times; one respects the life of every living individual.

Meat contains blood, according to numerous religions; blood is usually the carrier of life within any living animal, from the human being to the minutest of organisms. Essentially, this means that any individual that chooses to consume the meat of an animal also consumes its life. Such a practice would not be allowed in most religions, and it would be labeled as being outright immoral and lacking in piety and purity (Kristofn.p).

Most of these ethical considerations and beliefs are rebuttable. There is the argument of the purpose of God creating the world with animals. However, that argument presents a warped opinion seeing that there exist divergent opinions on the aspect of religion and the beginning of the world.

The religious underpinning, in the ethical motivations or otherwise, are not limited to the mainstream religions. A religion in this case should be taken as a philosophical abstract notion that motivates a certain belief. In this regard, the motivation advanced by Descartes and the legacy of Newton in their pseudo-religious theory of Modern Dualism

could be roped in to explain the ethics of meat eating (Descartes 281-283).

Newton and Descartes adopted a radical viewpoint that sought to place much emphasis on the ideal human motivations. A keen look at the life of a human being at face value would reveal that, on the innermost, we are two distinct entities. The act of living is one and the actions done because of that living are another, dictated by the environment in which each person finds himself. According to these two theorists, the idea of life and the events that follow life is merely accidental. In this regard, the two advance a notion that mainstream religion abdicates the role of explaining the course of life causing modern relativism, physics, to take its place. As a result, human beings have become convinced that the universe is soulless, relying on a mechanical interpolation with no manifestations of divine tapestry (Arda 202-205). As such, death being unexplained, there would be no need to kill an animal, thus, making the consumption of meat be both against the natural order of the relative theory and immoral.

Conclusion

There can never be a definitive conclusion on the aspect of meat-eating and the ethical motivations that follow it. Each camp seeks to advance their own views, and it should be stated that such arguments represent an arguable basis. The vegetarians argue that consumption of meat causes immense damage to the environment and because of the attendant effects on the body and health in general. Animal rights activists, on the other hand, argue that killing of animals is immoral and lacking in conscience and reason. They argue that there are other ethical and acceptable ways of consuming animal products like through the consumption of milk and eggs. The theory of Modern Dualism espoused by Descartes seeks to place emphasis on the fact that just because something is not expressly prohibited, it does not make it altogether legal or ethical.