Nature versus Nurture: Humans Should Morally Become Vegetarians To many, it is very acceptable and seemingly natural that humans include meat in their common diet. This practice can be found historically and globally across many countries and cultures. It is undeniable that humans are omnivores and have been for the past many millenniums. However, is consuming meat actually natural? What is acceptable may not be natural and may have become acceptable due to our environment and nurture, and it is important to distinguish between the two, as popular acceptance does not equal to moral rightness. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer argues that, as animals have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, they have sentience and hence, are subject to the equal moral worth as human beings. Therefore he claims that it is only moral that most of us ought to opt for a vegetarian lifestyle. I agree with Singer on this claim based on the Natural Law Theory and with scientific proof that animals indeed have a sentience and also based on our natural physiological design. Singer argues that equality should not be limited only to humans and points out that beings with a sentience should be entitled to equal consideration of their interests (Singer, 1990), with sentience being the ability to perceive through the senses. This is perfectly reasonable as there is ethological evidence that animals do have sentience on several cases, such as sheep being able to recognize faces, prairie dogs speaking their own language. Furthermore, elephants bury their dead, gibbons take care of their elderly, and male bats babysit young bats that are not their offspring while their mothers are out hunting (Basile, 2005). These animals need not do these actions, as these actions are not necessary for their own survival, nor do their own progeny’s survival depend on them. However, these altruistic deeds show that animals do not merely act on instinct. Moreover, emotions are present in animals such as chimpanzees showing excitement and joy when they are allowed out in the sun. Also, sadly, works of Dr. Donna Haraway, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, show that maternal deprivation, abuse and total isolation are shown to cause severe trauma in infant monkeys (as cited in Weisberg, 2009). The Natural Law Theory states that “good and right a direct function of the way things are naturally” and the good of human comes from realization of what is natural (VanDeVeer & Pierce, 2003). This law also supports anthropocentrism with “anthropo” being humanlike, with regards to sentience. When this theory was proposed, it was thought that only humans had the capability of being sentient and put human as of most importance. However, since some animals are now proven to have sentience, and arguably, morals as well, should they not be entitled to their own rights and interests as well? One might argue that since some animals, such as clams, cannot be proven to have emotions or morals, and hence it is morally acceptable to harvest them as food. However, this argument contains a fallacy of ignorance and is equivalent to arguing the Moon emits light before it was proven that in fact, it reflected the light from the Sun. Non-existence of an object should not be accepted simply because it has not yet been proven. Another objection to the equality of interests of animals may ensue from the natural state of the ecosystem: humans are at the top of the food chain and it is natural to consume beings positioned below us. And since the Natural Law Theory focuses on humans’ capacities, tendencies and desires, it is morally correct to consume meat as human beings. This is yet another fallacy of ignorance to what is natural. In fact, researchers have shown that humans are physiologically designed to be herbivores, and according to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, we have only started consuming meat around 10,000 years ago, which is recent in our years of evolution (as cited in Freston, 2009). Meat consumption is not essential for human survival and our omnivore tendency is out of choice, not of need. The anatomy of a human being is strikingly similar to one of a herbivore’s. Our not-so-sharp canine teeth and molar teeth are designed to optimize not the tearing of meat, but the chewing and grinding of fibrous plants. Also, carnivores have very short intestinal tracts, which is approximately three times its body length. However, a herbivore’s intestinal tract is around 12 times the body length, and human beings are extremely close to herbivores than carnivores. Also, humans lack the essential amino acids to properly digest meat and “It is clear that humankind 's gastrointestinal tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.” (Mills, 2009). On a health perspective, meat eaters are found to be at a much higher risk of having intestinal cancer and heart disesse than those who opt for a vegetarian or even vegan diet. (Towell, 2009) Since being vegetarian ultimately benefits humans and therefore flourishes humankind, fulfilling the Natural Law Theory, one can come to reason that being a vegetarian is morally correct and most should follow this lifestyle. However, it should also be pointed out that in some cases, if the human is extreme deficiency of a substance such as the vitamin B12, and in that situation, meat contains enough of such substance that benefits the human in a much shorter time domain than choosing the vegetable alternative would, then the human should be allowed to consume meat for the sake of an utilitarianism view, as Singer supports. Since the interests of all beings count, the instant relieve of the human being leads to the longer pleasure from not being sick, and would maximize the net worth of happiness. Therefore, it is morally accepted, so long that the animal sacrificed in this case is treated as humanely as possible and with the least amount of pain inflicted upon it. Although we cannot deny that humans have more factual superiority, it does not mean we can abuse that power and forcefully consume animals against their will only to fulfill our unnatural tendencies and lust for meat. It is immoral to consume meat simply because years of nurture has made it seemingly acceptable and as a species with higher intelligence, we must take the responsibility to distinguish between nature and nurture, while ensuring the wellbeing of our moral equals and taking their interests into consideration.
References
Basile, T. (n.d.). Animal Sentience and the Evolution of Emotion. Animal Welfare Institute . Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_2/542p67.htm
Freston:, K. (2009, June 11). Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians. Huffpost Healthy Living. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html
Mills, M. R. (2009, November 21). The Comparative Anatomy of Eating - Vegsource.com. Vegsource - Your source for all things vegan and vegetarian.. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html
Singer, P. (2003). Animal liberation. New York, N.Y.: New York Review of Books :. (Original work published 1973)
Towell, L. (2009, October 16). Yes, It 's True: Humans Aren 't Meant to Eat Meat. PETA Prime. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://prime.peta.org/2009/10/yes-its-true-humans-arent-meant-to-eat-meat
VanDeVeer, D., & Pierce, C. (2003). Chapter 1: An Introduction to Ethical Theory. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book (3rd Edition ed., p. 30). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Weisberg, Z. (2009). The Broken Promises of Monsters: Haraway, Animals and the Humanist Legacy. Journal for Critical Animal Studies , 12(2), 25 - 26. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Zipporah-Wesiberg-pg.-22-62.pdf
References: Basile, T. (n.d.). Animal Sentience and the Evolution of Emotion. Animal Welfare Institute . Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_2/542p67.htm Freston:, K. (2009, June 11). Shattering The Meat Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians. Huffpost Healthy Living. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html Mills, M. R. (2009, November 21). The Comparative Anatomy of Eating - Vegsource.com. Vegsource - Your source for all things vegan and vegetarian.. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html Singer, P. (2003). Animal liberation. New York, N.Y.: New York Review of Books :. (Original work published 1973) Towell, L. (2009, October 16). Yes, It 's True: Humans Aren 't Meant to Eat Meat. PETA Prime. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://prime.peta.org/2009/10/yes-its-true-humans-arent-meant-to-eat-meat VanDeVeer, D., & Pierce, C. (2003). Chapter 1: An Introduction to Ethical Theory. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book (3rd Edition ed., p. 30). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Weisberg, Z. (2009). The Broken Promises of Monsters: Haraway, Animals and the Humanist Legacy. Journal for Critical Animal Studies , 12(2), 25 - 26. Retrieved May 28, 2013, from http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Zipporah-Wesiberg-pg.-22-62.pdf
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Jeremy Rifkin, an American economist, writer and public speaker, is founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends (FOET). In his article, “A Change of Heart about Animals,” published in the Los Angeles Times (2003), suggests that animals are more like humans in the sense that they are capable of feeling emotions as well as comprehending concepts much like we’ve never expected. He supports his claim by providing a series of statistics, facts and rhetorical questions, all of which have a strong appeal directly to logos and indirectly to pathos.…
- 1672 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Jeremy Rifkin 's article, “A Change of Heart About Animals” argues that animals are more like humans than we imagine and as a result should be treated with the care that they deserve. Rifkin develops and supports his argument using facts about the animals and these facts end up touching hearts. In order for Rifkin to get his point across he uses a smart technique by using pathos and plays with the emotions of his audience. Rifkin loves animals and his passion and love evokes emotions that the audience can feel. Animals can feel and have emotions similar to ours. in agreement with Rifkin, I argue that it is wrong and inhumane to kill or abuse animals because they feel, they deserve to have space and should be valued as much as humans are It is wrong no animal should be killed due to abuse or testing, it is wrong and inhumane.…
- 838 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin says that animals are more like us than we imagined and that we should treat them the same way we treat humans. Although Rifkin’s background is impressive, and he is probably very knowledgeable about economic trends in Washington DC, there is little evidence provided that he has much expertise in the areas of animal emotions and their cognitive abilities.…
- 286 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
People tend to pay as much attention to food as they do brushing their teeth. I urge you, however, to take a step back, slow down, and really think about the food you eat. Eating is a complex thing. It may surprise you. And when you actually think about eating, you will eventually come to think about eating meat. This is no accident, meat has it's pull on humanity. And on our world. The choices we make matter. According to the best-selling author Jonathan Safran Foer, eating the meat we know "is certainly the single worst thing that humans can do to the environment"(457). Foer has been recognized by Rolling Stones Magazine and Esquire for his many accomplishments. In one of his works, "Against Meat", Foer covers the relationship of meat and…
- 884 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
“Some people become vegetarians after realizing the devastation that the meat industry is having on the environment.” (Vegetarian Times)…
- 889 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…
- 476 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over…
- 1055 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
The Vegetarian Myth, written by author Lierre Keith, tackles the ever-heated question: To eat animal products or not to eat animal products? I add the word “products,” after animal because the book should more properly be called the vegan myth. As a former vegan of over twenty years Keith comes from a place of experience, or as she might have it, a bitter experience. Feeling betrayed, in denial, and physically ill from her vegan years, she has made it her goal to reveal the truth and put to rest the Vegetarian notion that abstaining from animal products is the righteous path that is morally correct, will feed the hungry, and lead to greater nutrition. Chapter one, titled “Why This Book” will be the focus of this analysis because it gives an appropriate introduction to Keith’s…
- 1176 Words
- 5 Pages
Best Essays -
A. Singer reflects his statements in Animal Liberation “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration.”…
- 779 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Animals contain traits that humans acquire into their everyday lives, yet humans find different approaches to make these animals suffer on a day to day basis. Tom Regan, author of Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, describes various situations in which humans hunt animals for pleasure while Stephen Rose, author of Proud to be a Speciesist, illustrates why a speciesist like himself would use animals for research. Tom Regan’s describes his main point as to why humans would want to slaughter such precious animals to have them for resources. On the opposing side of the argument, Stephen Rose’s argument states that animal cruelty cannot be considered wrong because “Many human diseases and disorders are found in other mammals…” (Rose 553). Although Regan…
- 1452 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Peter Singer and his philosophy have received a range of praise and criticism for his progressive views. Some have called him the most dangerous man in the world, while others consider him a hero in the teachings of morality and ethics. His detractors make mention of his views on Animal Equality, blasting his comparisons of modern man’s treatment of animals to that of; slavery the Holocaust, human suffering and infanticide. Singer’s essay, All Animals Are Equal, poses the argument that all sentiment beings are entitled to the most basic of dignities and consideration, no different than those considerations reserved for humans. Singer draws no line of distinction between our species and other species who we, as humans…
- 1249 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed.Sylvan Barnet & Hugo Bedau. 9th ed.Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s, 2011. Print.…
- 754 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
How can one person can save 33,000 gallons of water a month? Some may say it is impossible, but the answer is simple - vegetarianism. A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat of any kind. There are many reasons a person may decide to go vegetarian including ethical, health, or environmental. Vegetarians can be traced back into early history but, in today’s world, vegetarianism is on the rise as a concern for climate change is too. Major portions of the population are taking a stance against meat producing industries and changing their diets. Meat production is a huge contributor to pollution and climate change. Eating meat can also have a toll on one’s health. In order to change the course of rapid climate change, the population has…
- 436 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The processed meat industry is an 800 billion dollar industry killing over 10 billion animals each in the United State alone. Factory farmed livestock account for over 99% of all the meat consumed by Americans even though they are raised in these despicable conditions. Many animals raised on factory farms live in abhorrent conditions where they are unable to turn around in their own cages, live in their own feces, and never even see the light of day.. Peter Singer dives into the idea that all animals are equal in a selection taken out of his book Animal Liberation, found in James and Stuart Rachels’ The Right Thing To Do, and advocates for the humane treatment of animals. Singer lays out the argument that it is morally wrong to make animals…
- 1472 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays -
People in today’s world are always looking for ways to stay healthy and be fit. It is very crucial to have a balanced diet so that disease is at a lower risk of appearing later in life, therefore, people in society have been creating diets geared towards their own interests. Two common forms of dieting are vegetarianism and carnivorism. Carnivores eat meat, while vegetarians substitute that protein for something else. Many tests comparing the two has proven that being vegetarian not only affects the body in a positive way, but is also good for the mind. Overall vegetarianism is a good way to stay healthy, have less risks of diseases, and help save resources here on Earth because of the harmful toxins from…
- 1303 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays