Annotated Bibliography On Eating Animals
Annotated Bibliography
Oanijah J. Adkins
DeVry University
Woodard, W. (2010). Persian sheep, hawksbill turtles and vodsels: The ethics of eating in some contemporary narratives. In W. Woodard (Ed.), Australia: Australian Literary Studies. http://www.devry.library.edu/Ebsco host
The essay is presented on how different novelists represented eating animals in their own short essays. One story is a depiction on the ethics of importing animals for slaughtering by presenting the functional story of Professor David Lurie. Professor Lurie forced himself to eat sheep meat just to accept another person’s cultural belief. The common way of drawing a conceptual line between human and animal is represented repeatedly.
The essay indicates humans’ behavior towards nonhuman animals. I will explain how factory farmers treat their livestock compared to non-factory farmers. I plan on bringing forth humans moral responsibilities to nonhuman animals.
Marcus, E. (2001). Vegan: The new ethics of eating. (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, NY: McBooks Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books/about/Vegan In the book Vegan: The new ethics of eating, Erik Marcus argues that a vegan diet is by far the healthiest, linking meat consumption to heart disease, cancer and obesity. Marcus …show more content…
also devotes a chapter to mad cow disease, exploring the issue on a level absent from the media frenzy created by the Cattlemen’s Association suit against Oprah Winfrey. Marcus also argues that corporate farmers are treating their animals in a cruel and inhumane manner. He also writes that meat production consumes natural resources explaining that it takes at least ten pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef. The book indicates the environmental impact on cattle ranching. I will inform the reader through Erik’s book on animal mistreatment and cruelty. Giving information on how it is affecting everyone who eats meat.
DeGrazia, D. (1999). Animal ethics around the turn of the twenty--first century. Journal of agriculture and environmental ethics, (11), 111-29. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn
Indirect theories deny animals’ moral status or equal consideration with humans due to a lack of consciousness, reason, or autonomy. Ultimately denying moral status to animals, these theories may still require not harming animals, but only because doing so causes harm to a human being’s morality. (DeGrazia 1999)
Harrison, P. (1999). Do animals feel pain? Philosophy, (66), 25-40. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn In an oft-quoted passage from The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham addresses the issue of our treatment of animals with the following words: ‘the question is not, Can they reason?
Nor, can they talk? But, Can they suffer?’ The point is well taken, for surely if animals suffer, they are legitimate objects of our moral concern. It is curious therefore, given the current interest in the moral status of animals, that Bentham's question has been assumed to be merely rhetorical. In this paper he suggest that the issue of animal pain is not so easily dispensed with, and that the evidence brought forward to demonstrate that animals feel pain is far from
conclusive. I will use this article to describe the importance of whether or not nonhuman animals can suffer. The reader will find out if humans are doing enough to or even care to find out the moral concerns of animals.
Steinbock, B. (1998). Speciesism and the idea of equality. (53), 247-56. Retrieved from http://kyleclarkuvic.wikidot.com/speciesism-and-the-idea-of-equality-steinbock
Steinbock responds to singer with her view that it's okay to be 'speciesist.' She agrees with singer that sentience in animals gives us a reason to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals. She notes that singer's argument is counter-intuitive; EG choosing to feed your starving dog over a child you just met. Would it not be morally wrong to let a dog live over a child? I will use this to show views of different researches that has been done on my topic. The will be able to view both sides and come up with their own opinions on the topic.
Oanijah J. Adkins
DeVry University
Woodard, W. (2010). Persian sheep, hawksbill turtles and vodsels: The ethics of eating in some contemporary narratives. In W. Woodard (Ed.), Australia: Australian Literary Studies. http://www.devry.library.edu/Ebsco host
The essay is presented on how different novelists represented eating animals in their own short essays. One story is a depiction on the ethics of importing animals for slaughtering by presenting the functional story of Professor David Lurie. Professor Lurie forced himself to eat sheep meat just to accept another person’s cultural belief. The common way of drawing a conceptual line between human and animal is represented repeatedly.
The essay indicates humans’ behavior towards nonhuman animals. I will explain how factory farmers treat their livestock compared to non-factory farmers. I plan on bringing forth humans moral responsibilities to nonhuman animals.
Marcus, E. (2001). Vegan: The new ethics of eating. (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, NY: McBooks Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books/about/Vegan In the book Vegan: The new ethics of eating, Erik Marcus argues that a vegan diet is by far the healthiest, linking meat consumption to heart disease, cancer and obesity. Marcus …show more content…
also devotes a chapter to mad cow disease, exploring the issue on a level absent from the media frenzy created by the Cattlemen’s Association suit against Oprah Winfrey. Marcus also argues that corporate farmers are treating their animals in a cruel and inhumane manner. He also writes that meat production consumes natural resources explaining that it takes at least ten pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef. The book indicates the environmental impact on cattle ranching. I will inform the reader through Erik’s book on animal mistreatment and cruelty. Giving information on how it is affecting everyone who eats meat.
DeGrazia, D. (1999). Animal ethics around the turn of the twenty--first century. Journal of agriculture and environmental ethics, (11), 111-29. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn
Indirect theories deny animals’ moral status or equal consideration with humans due to a lack of consciousness, reason, or autonomy. Ultimately denying moral status to animals, these theories may still require not harming animals, but only because doing so causes harm to a human being’s morality. (DeGrazia 1999)
Harrison, P. (1999). Do animals feel pain? Philosophy, (66), 25-40. Retrieved from http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn In an oft-quoted passage from The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham addresses the issue of our treatment of animals with the following words: ‘the question is not, Can they reason?
Nor, can they talk? But, Can they suffer?’ The point is well taken, for surely if animals suffer, they are legitimate objects of our moral concern. It is curious therefore, given the current interest in the moral status of animals, that Bentham's question has been assumed to be merely rhetorical. In this paper he suggest that the issue of animal pain is not so easily dispensed with, and that the evidence brought forward to demonstrate that animals feel pain is far from
conclusive. I will use this article to describe the importance of whether or not nonhuman animals can suffer. The reader will find out if humans are doing enough to or even care to find out the moral concerns of animals.
Steinbock, B. (1998). Speciesism and the idea of equality. (53), 247-56. Retrieved from http://kyleclarkuvic.wikidot.com/speciesism-and-the-idea-of-equality-steinbock
Steinbock responds to singer with her view that it's okay to be 'speciesist.' She agrees with singer that sentience in animals gives us a reason to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals. She notes that singer's argument is counter-intuitive; EG choosing to feed your starving dog over a child you just met. Would it not be morally wrong to let a dog live over a child? I will use this to show views of different researches that has been done on my topic. The will be able to view both sides and come up with their own opinions on the topic.