Essay paper addressing the Morality of Eating Meat

The Morality of Eating Meat

The debate on the morality of eating meat is constant, since there are various arguments and perspectives from people. While eating meat, Peter Singer, a contemporary utilitarian, asks that, “Are we justified in considering our pleasure and pain as more significant than that of animals?” thereby, people’s willingness to eat through meat production is questioned about justifying the intention of human beings (Henchion et al., 2017). Surprisingly, the familiar fact that has been established is that eating meat is like racism, as people favor the interest of human beings (their species) as opposed to animals. Other philosophers argue that animals are also subject to life like humans are. The significant implication is that just like humans have rights, expectations, wants, and their preferences.Typically, the morality of eating meat does not rely on the suffering of animals only, but the general processes involved in treating animals as human resources. Comment by deam algaw: ? Comment by deam algaw: false equivalency Comment by deam algaw: what do you mean? Comment by deam algaw: good!

Nonetheless, supporters of meat-eating base their arguments on human exceptionalism. They believe that animals lack moral status similar to humans (Ang et al., 2019). They also base their arguments on the bases that humans are superior in abilities compared to these animals. For example, there is a social relationship in humans, the ability to communicate, and feel pain and reason elements. However, they have failed to realize that it is wrong to treat animals as they wish, because animals are just like a human, it is morally wrong to treat humans as a resource especially to harvest body organs. In the same way, it is morally wrong to raise animals just for meat. For this reason, the element of factory farming is a wrong approach and injustice that justifies the use of animals as resources. Comment by deam algaw: I see where you are coming from, organ harvesting should be replaced with cannibalism

The Moral Case against Eating Meat

There are more proven scientific studies and observations that have proven that animals experience pain equivalent to humans as well as feelings (Henchion et al., 2017). For instance, there is a complicated emotional life shown by elephants like grieving their loved ones, including a sophisticated family and social relationships. It is crucial to understand that animals can communicate with each other, reason, probably use specific languages, and behave normally and morally. Therefore, excluding animals from moral consideration and eating them is wrong for allegations that they lack such characteristics. Comment by deam algaw: Unsubstantiated Comment by deam algaw: what do you mean ??

Nonetheless, one of the significant questions is that “What is wrong about killing animals?” usually, it is impossible to comprehensively address this matter of the moral meaning of eating meat without thoughts of the importance of life and death. Otherwise, people would not be subjected to the ethical concerns stemming them from the separation of the fact of each death behind the pieces of meat that they have eaten. The social and physical distance from butcher houses to dinner tables, shield people from the pain and fear that these animals feel as they are driven to slaughter as well as turning dead animals to just pieces of meat. The fact remains that these animals undergo a lot of unfair treatment before eventually becoming meat. Comment by deam algaw: make it better Comment by deam algaw: Good ! Comment by deam algaw: Add a paragraph demonstrating unfair treatment

Besides, the idea that the distance shields people from the death fact goes beyond the food company. People have used animals as ways to accumulate things like wealth, expertise, status, and reputation while ignoring the fact that these conditions are impermanent and worthless in the end. Therefore, using animals to provide large populations with meat would make certain people achieve a certain status in their lives. However, the moral implications behind such status are that it was acquired after the immoral practices and activities that animals have been subjected to. Comment by deam algaw: weird choice Comment by deam algaw: put a number here

The Moral Necessity

Various issues are underlying in the moral issues that address the cruelty of environmental conditions that animals are subjects to. Even before factory farming, vegetarianism existed before factory farming, and a vital and straightforward conviction majorly inspired the idea of killing is immoral. It means that taking an animal’s life unnecessarily is wrong since the act is brutal, bloody, and barbaric (De Backer & Hudders, 2015). Nonetheless, it is necessary to understand the difference between killing animals and plants. The killing of animals and plants are dissimilar since animals have a more active form of life, and has higher sentience as well as capacities to suffer. Thus, compassion extends readily to animals since some cry out in pain and fear. While justifying the moral aspect behind eating meat, the comparison plays a lesser role. Animals have more human characters, and it is wrong to treat animals in ways that humans would not be subjected to. Comment by deam algaw: change

It must be noted that one of the significant factors for the outcry of moral in eating meat is based on factory farming and humans desire to eat meat. Factory farming provides the cruelest environment for raising animals (Henchion et al., 2017). Animals are kept in rooms with restricted movements and poorly fed. They are forced to the same diet instead of letting them wander and acquire the necessary foods and nutrients. All these are done to keep them readily available for killing. Usually, the moral aspect of the discussion is related to treating these animals to give meat concerning the very way that humans could be treated. Any humans would feel the infringement of their rights due to restricted movements, so are animals. Comment by deam algaw: ? Comment by deam algaw: Add source here Comment by deam algaw: sometimes! Comment by deam algaw: what??

Moreover, humans are aggressively eating meat to satisfy their vast appetite. The deliciousness of meat is another factor that leads to the killing of animals. Instead of finding other alternative solutions to end the killing of animals, humans have resorted to satisfy their appetites. Typically, it is wrong to use another person to meet one's needs. The same way, it is immoral for humans to use animals to satisfy their wants (Ang et al., 2019). Besides, there are various alternatives to acquiring the nutrients that meat offers to the body. The fact, however, remains that the direction that human takes to eat meat eventually is morally wrong. Comment by deam algaw: Very good!

Understanding Moral of Eating Meat from Divine Perspective

The way of nature is that there are times to live and times to die. By thinking about this, prolonged suffering should be a rare element of life. The meat industry makes profits from the animals they kill. There is always fear and pain whenever an animal is taken to be butchered. There are essential moral aspects that present themselves. Usually, life according to deity is considered a value that must be cherished (Grumett, 2015). Life of animals and humans are thus equal. Therefore, the extent to which people eat meat implies that life of animals has become an empty value. Even though there are no judgments that can be passed to humans based on such deity teachings, human beings are made to see the impacts that life has value and to take it away is immoral. Comment by deam algaw: good!

Besides, people coexist due to harmony and peace. When a given group is denied such harmonious integration, they are by definition excluded from a system. The same way, deity teaches that animals and humans coexistence is a mutual process that benefits both. Therefore, turning against animals to only benefit humans is a wrong practice (Grumett, 2015). Moreover, it is critical to understand that eating meat means that there are varieties of animals that are killed. It is for this reason that each animal has a specific name to the meat it provides. Therefore, it does not matter the naming that we give to meat from animals, but the fact remains that humans have blood on their hands, the blood of innocent animals and souls. Comment by deam algaw: Good!

In summary, the morality of eating meat does not rely on the suffering of animals only, but the general processes involved in treating animals as human resources. The moral aspect of eating meat still relies on around a significant concept that, “Are we justified in considering our pleasure and pain as more significant than that of animals?” Animals continue to suffer by undergoing pain and fear when they are butchered. Perhaps, the primary reason why people do not experience how animals feel is the insulation created from the slaughterhouse to dinner tables. Therefore, people must understand that the primary reason for the wrong perception of eating meat is the matter of life and death that are faced by animals. Eating meat is thus wrong since most of the time it is used as a way to satisfy the human appetite, and humans use animals as resources. Comment by deam algaw: Very Good!

Comment by deam algaw: Overall, its good but the essay is not clear it does not present the argument in an organized fashion. I see that a few sentences don't flow right, disorganized when the author touches on the hypocrisy , they are especially strong. Work on the flow, tighten the sentences. also make sure that the authors are introduced and authority established