Eating Animals By Jonathan Safran Foer
There are numerous duped exchanges that are highlighted within the film Food Inc. and the text, Eating Animals written by Jonathan Safran Foer. The sad thing is, a large amount of people within the United States don’t know about these exchanges. Should animals be treated with the same respect as humans? Or possibly with the amount of respect that Native Americans give to the animals that they kill and use every inch of useful materials that they provide? Many people believe we should, so why isn’t animal welfare a bigger issue today? The answer to that is because the big meat packaging corporations manipulate, or “duping” the common people into believing what they are doing is the correct way to provide meat to everyone, or they simply try
…show more content…
to hide the truth from the media. These exchanges are the norm for the meat market in the modern world, and people are starting to catch on a bit more, which is leading to the changing of diet, meat eating moderation, and could slowly be affecting the meat corporations. A point that Foer makes in Eating Animals is that animals have interests too. An example would be pork, due to their intellectual abilities to learn. They have evolved to behave and have to complete somewhat difficult tasks. The interests of animals are sometimes disregarded by humans, which is why duped exchanges can happen behind the scenes so easily. There is a policy called a Common Farming Exemption (CFE) that is enacted within the state. This policy is basically that, as long as enough people are breaking the law, and this law is being broken by so many people it’s become a regular thing, this action would be considered legal. What would justify treating animals poorly and worth breaking the law for? Is it their lack of speech, lack of self-awareness, lack of ability to resist or protect them-selves, lack of having a complex social relationship? This isn’t any reason to treat animals this way. What about the humans that have these same qualities? Should we treat them inhumanely like animals? Of course not, so animals also deserve better. Treating animals poorly and abusively for no relevant reason is depicted as speciesism, which is not something we should support. Food Inc. had a few noticeable duped exchanges in it as well. The film shows the views that the modern food industry has changed food in the wrong direction, and is only hurting the consumers. For example, seasons are all year round in supermarkets, which are caused by the mass production of every kind of food and genetically modifying them so they will always be available. This may sound like a good thing, since you can always buy the produce that you want, instead of waiting until next year when whatever you want to buy is in season. It’s quite the opposite if you’re looking for the healthy route, due to the amount of modified genes that are used to alter the growth of almost all of our food in the supermarkets. Nowadays, our food is coming from factories, right off assembly lines, similar to the practices of fast food restaurants. What we say and what we know about companies is limited, due to the constraints that food manufacturing companies put on their employees so that they don’t scare away the customers. The idea of this video is to “lift the veil” of the American Food System. The meat industries hold so much power over what gets processed and sent out to the supermarkets for consumers to buy. In the movie Food Inc., they mentioned that the top four meat packing companies control 80% of the meat being circulated within the American Food Industry. Tyson, the largest meat packing company, produces a large amount of food, within a small amount of land. They hold all their animals within a small confined space within their slaughterhouses and meat packing factories. Due to the massive amount of produce that needs to be shipped out and delivered, the time required to make the factories animals as fat as the companies want them, the quality of the food is sacrificed, as well as the wellbeing and health of the animals. The packing companies fatten up their animals in 49 days, compared to the normal rate of growth at non-meat packing locations, which is three months. Since these companies are so big, the only way most farmers can make somewhat of a living is signing a contract into the packing companies. Chicken farmers for example, if they refused to sign with the companies, they would have very little to no business, and lose a lot of money, but if they signed into the company, they would be required to buy a poultry house designed to their standards, which cost around $280,000 to $300,000, and then are forced to keep upgrading the chicken houses or their contract could be terminated. The exchanges within the food industry are very consistent with the conditions and aims within the market. The food industry basically runs the market because of its contribution of goods and money to keep stores stocked, and gives a lot of people jobs. Because of this amount of power that the food industry has within the market, the rules that they want to be passed and followed by the companies and politics within the market are easily swayed in their favor. Yes, there are some people who independently provide their own produce and there are now a lot more companies outside of the major sections of the food industry that are trying to put more organic foods into the market system, but for the most part, all of the regulations the food industry want to help benefit themselves, are implemented within the market. Is it ever ethical to deceive another person in the business world? Some would say it is, and some would say it’s an awful thing to do, but in some cases, it might be your only option, including outside of the business world. Albert Z. Carr, who wrote a piece about business bluffing in the Harvard Business Review in 1968, believes that this inter-business lying is unethical minus drastic cases where it is needed to protect yourself or others. In his article, Is Business Bluffing Ethical, he states, “I reminded my friend that millions of businessmen feel constrained every day to say yes to their bosses when they secretly believe no and that this is generally accepted as permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job”(Carr). Carr doesn’t completely support this practice of lying to your boss to save yourself, as it shows lying is an easy way out and could become a habit, which could lead to problems in the future. Some would argue, in some cases, business permits deception, and that the strategy of business demands deception, which is also what Carr believes. Now, opposing Albert Carr’s opinion, Alan Goldman, a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami, states that bluffing in any form of the word is wrong, and should never be condoned.
Goldman believes that advertising serves the goal of prosperity and freedom because; it informs the consumer of the transaction and the details about the product. Although advertising has its positive attributes, it can also work against prosperity and freedom in three different ways, and possibly more. One way advertising can go wrong, is when an ad misinforms the audience about the product. Some ads are just blatant lies to get money, and provide none of the correct services to the consumer. This is probably the biggest issue because, it diminishes the freedom, possibly prosperity and trust of the people buying this companies product. Another way advertising can become manipulating is when an ad begins to stimulate unconscious desires. One example of this is done with subliminal advertising, which is when there is a message hidden behind the focal point within the picture to bring out urges in the viewer to go buy something by unconsciously grabbing their minds attention. Thirdly, ads can create new desires that can lead to unconsciously locking their brand into your desires so you will only buy whatever product you are buying from that specific company, rather than trying out a different
one. Duped exchanges are happening everywhere, especially in our food system. Carr and Goldman have both narrowed down some points for bluffing when necessary, or to not lie at all, but I’d have to agree with Carr. When bluffing is used to keep you, your family, or the whole company safe, I think that it is an acceptable time to lie to someone or some company. Lying to cheat your clients or other companies is not a good way to live, but when lying to keep peace between other parties is the target, I can support the occasional bluffing.
to hide the truth from the media. These exchanges are the norm for the meat market in the modern world, and people are starting to catch on a bit more, which is leading to the changing of diet, meat eating moderation, and could slowly be affecting the meat corporations. A point that Foer makes in Eating Animals is that animals have interests too. An example would be pork, due to their intellectual abilities to learn. They have evolved to behave and have to complete somewhat difficult tasks. The interests of animals are sometimes disregarded by humans, which is why duped exchanges can happen behind the scenes so easily. There is a policy called a Common Farming Exemption (CFE) that is enacted within the state. This policy is basically that, as long as enough people are breaking the law, and this law is being broken by so many people it’s become a regular thing, this action would be considered legal. What would justify treating animals poorly and worth breaking the law for? Is it their lack of speech, lack of self-awareness, lack of ability to resist or protect them-selves, lack of having a complex social relationship? This isn’t any reason to treat animals this way. What about the humans that have these same qualities? Should we treat them inhumanely like animals? Of course not, so animals also deserve better. Treating animals poorly and abusively for no relevant reason is depicted as speciesism, which is not something we should support. Food Inc. had a few noticeable duped exchanges in it as well. The film shows the views that the modern food industry has changed food in the wrong direction, and is only hurting the consumers. For example, seasons are all year round in supermarkets, which are caused by the mass production of every kind of food and genetically modifying them so they will always be available. This may sound like a good thing, since you can always buy the produce that you want, instead of waiting until next year when whatever you want to buy is in season. It’s quite the opposite if you’re looking for the healthy route, due to the amount of modified genes that are used to alter the growth of almost all of our food in the supermarkets. Nowadays, our food is coming from factories, right off assembly lines, similar to the practices of fast food restaurants. What we say and what we know about companies is limited, due to the constraints that food manufacturing companies put on their employees so that they don’t scare away the customers. The idea of this video is to “lift the veil” of the American Food System. The meat industries hold so much power over what gets processed and sent out to the supermarkets for consumers to buy. In the movie Food Inc., they mentioned that the top four meat packing companies control 80% of the meat being circulated within the American Food Industry. Tyson, the largest meat packing company, produces a large amount of food, within a small amount of land. They hold all their animals within a small confined space within their slaughterhouses and meat packing factories. Due to the massive amount of produce that needs to be shipped out and delivered, the time required to make the factories animals as fat as the companies want them, the quality of the food is sacrificed, as well as the wellbeing and health of the animals. The packing companies fatten up their animals in 49 days, compared to the normal rate of growth at non-meat packing locations, which is three months. Since these companies are so big, the only way most farmers can make somewhat of a living is signing a contract into the packing companies. Chicken farmers for example, if they refused to sign with the companies, they would have very little to no business, and lose a lot of money, but if they signed into the company, they would be required to buy a poultry house designed to their standards, which cost around $280,000 to $300,000, and then are forced to keep upgrading the chicken houses or their contract could be terminated. The exchanges within the food industry are very consistent with the conditions and aims within the market. The food industry basically runs the market because of its contribution of goods and money to keep stores stocked, and gives a lot of people jobs. Because of this amount of power that the food industry has within the market, the rules that they want to be passed and followed by the companies and politics within the market are easily swayed in their favor. Yes, there are some people who independently provide their own produce and there are now a lot more companies outside of the major sections of the food industry that are trying to put more organic foods into the market system, but for the most part, all of the regulations the food industry want to help benefit themselves, are implemented within the market. Is it ever ethical to deceive another person in the business world? Some would say it is, and some would say it’s an awful thing to do, but in some cases, it might be your only option, including outside of the business world. Albert Z. Carr, who wrote a piece about business bluffing in the Harvard Business Review in 1968, believes that this inter-business lying is unethical minus drastic cases where it is needed to protect yourself or others. In his article, Is Business Bluffing Ethical, he states, “I reminded my friend that millions of businessmen feel constrained every day to say yes to their bosses when they secretly believe no and that this is generally accepted as permissible strategy when the alternative might be the loss of a job”(Carr). Carr doesn’t completely support this practice of lying to your boss to save yourself, as it shows lying is an easy way out and could become a habit, which could lead to problems in the future. Some would argue, in some cases, business permits deception, and that the strategy of business demands deception, which is also what Carr believes. Now, opposing Albert Carr’s opinion, Alan Goldman, a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami, states that bluffing in any form of the word is wrong, and should never be condoned.
Goldman believes that advertising serves the goal of prosperity and freedom because; it informs the consumer of the transaction and the details about the product. Although advertising has its positive attributes, it can also work against prosperity and freedom in three different ways, and possibly more. One way advertising can go wrong, is when an ad misinforms the audience about the product. Some ads are just blatant lies to get money, and provide none of the correct services to the consumer. This is probably the biggest issue because, it diminishes the freedom, possibly prosperity and trust of the people buying this companies product. Another way advertising can become manipulating is when an ad begins to stimulate unconscious desires. One example of this is done with subliminal advertising, which is when there is a message hidden behind the focal point within the picture to bring out urges in the viewer to go buy something by unconsciously grabbing their minds attention. Thirdly, ads can create new desires that can lead to unconsciously locking their brand into your desires so you will only buy whatever product you are buying from that specific company, rather than trying out a different
one. Duped exchanges are happening everywhere, especially in our food system. Carr and Goldman have both narrowed down some points for bluffing when necessary, or to not lie at all, but I’d have to agree with Carr. When bluffing is used to keep you, your family, or the whole company safe, I think that it is an acceptable time to lie to someone or some company. Lying to cheat your clients or other companies is not a good way to live, but when lying to keep peace between other parties is the target, I can support the occasional bluffing.