Persuasive Essay On Meat
The Debate on Meat
For many years, there has been an ongoing discussion on whether animal protein is an essential aspect of the human diet. In today's world, meat is seemingly served with every meal: for instance, bacon for breakfast, grilled chicken for lunch, and a hamburger for dinner. However, recent studies have proven that although many people are accustomed to consuming fellow beings of this earth, it is not needed to sustain a healthy life. Following an herbivorous diet provides multiple moral and health-related benefits, and people are already taking measures to reduce the use of animal products.
People have strong sentimental connections to animals; however, the bond is usually limited to pets, such as dogs and cats. Although …show more content…
pigs share shockingly similar characteristics and may even possess higher levels of intelligence than their canine counterparts, people still easily disconnect themselves from the pork-providing beings (Clement 47). When the abuse and torment that meat-bearing animals experience daily is revealed to the public eye, they choose to ignore it and continue to shovel the greasy animal flesh into their ravenous mouths. However, when the story of Fred the puppy torturer who abused puppies to obtain cocamone, a chemical that would enhance the flavor of chocolate, surfaced, people were outraged! A person who neglects puppies should be subjected to extreme punishment by law (Norcross 229-230). For some reason the torment of people's beloved four-legged friends is unacceptable, but people will still allow the same kind of torture to occur to cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals. In fact, "billions of animals continue to meet gruesome deaths in slaughterhouses, stockyards, and labs every year," and "[t]here is no evidence that the number of animals raised in industrial farms or killed in slaughter houses and laboratories is declining" (Fetissenko 151). The conditions these animals are born under are unbelievably heart-rending; for instance, "anemic calves imprisoned in narrow crates, sows chained to rape racks, debeaked chickens crammed, up to a dozen at a time, into small cages, and terrified cattle being haphazardly killed and eviscerated" are just some of the cruelties inflicted upon these animals (Sapontzis 121). If animal mistreatment towards canines and felines is frowned upon, the abuse and slaughter of farm animals should also be considered morally wrong. When most people go to the supermarket and purchase a slab of beef, they do not know half of the pain and misery that that animal had went through to satisfy human hunger. While many people will argue by proclaiming "the suffering of nonhuman animals does not matter as much as human suffering," there is no excuse that a single human could conjure up to make the immoral practices less gruesome (Fetissenko 156). Overall, double standards among animals of this earth should be terminated; if a dog can live out its happy years, a pig should be able to do the same. If one is morally righteous, then the pain that meat animals experience on a day to day basis should be enough evidence for him to boycott meat eating and factory farming.
If knowing that one would possibly be giving another animal a better chance at life by simply altering his diet is not enough to make him refrain from consuming the flesh of animals, then perhaps knowing the health benefits would furthermore persuade him.
In today's world, everyone is striving to be "healthy". Fad diets circulate among magazines, social media, and even through word of mouth. Becoming an herbivorous eater could make being healthy effortless, especially since there are so many meat and animal alternatives in the market. It has been proved by many doctors and dieticians "that the consumption of animal food products is unnecessary for optimal health at any stage of life"(Fetissenko 156). The common beliefs that milk strengthens bones and that meat is the only way of consuming high amounts of protein are simply myths. In fact, vegetarians have been proven to have higher amounts of bone density when compared to their carnivorous counterparts (Healthwatch 10). Furthermore, many people are on budgets today. It would only make since to discontinue purchasing meat since it tends to be on the pricier side; so, transitioning into a vegetarian lifestyle would not only be healthier, but could ultimately save money (Healthwatch 10). Fat-rich foods, such as hamburgers, are commonly found in a Westerner's diet; however, these delicious, grease-dripping foods can lead to heart disease and other medical complications. If one does not ingest the fat-filled meals, then there may …show more content…
be some protection against heart disease (Healthwatch 10). Some may argue that a meatless lifestyle can lead in vitamin deficiencies, but there are many supplements available. Also, eating nutrient rich foods, such as legumes and sesame seeds, could provide zinc and calcium (Healthwatch 11). Any diet can become hazardous if not performed correctly; so, if one has a nutrient rich diet and takes sufficient supplements, one could safely execute an herbivorous diet (Healthwatch 10). With this information in mind, consuming less animal products is a wise decision, as it could save the lives of animals and be beneficial to human health.
Despite the sufficient evidence that proves that vegetarianism has multiple moral and health benefits, there are still people who argue against a plant-based diet.
Although multiple studies show that animals can and do feel pain, people do not want to accept this. People do not want to admit that the bacon on their ideal breakfast plate came from a tortured, life-deprived pig. As a result, they develop the ideas that animal pain does not matter as much as human pain to feel better about themselves (Fetissenko 155). Apparently, the "bellowing, squawking, moaning, and screeching—but not 'complaining' --animals who are farmed do not really feel pain at all"(Sapontzis 122). Then there are other people who, in fact, do know that the animals the that they so willingly consume are experiencing extreme amounts of agony. Their argument against vegetarianism is that humans will experience pain if meat eating ceases; and, even worse, it will be an economic pain to demolish meat industries (Devine 485). This is yet another failed attempt to justify the use of animal products. Overall, "it is impossible to come up with a coherent moral justification for consuming animal food products unless we are willing to accept 'we like it' as a sufficient justification" (Fetissenko 156). People will create many excuses to account for their eating of meat, but deep down they know that the consumption of animal products comes with cruel animal practices. If one is morally concerned about animals, they
should resist factory farming and refrain from consuming animal products instead of conjuring up justifications for what they are doing.
The animal rights movement has been on-going for decades and will remain continuous for years to follow. The horrible deaths that many farm animals meet to satisfy human taste buds must end. Until animal treatment is moral and humane, many people will continue to follow meatless diets and, as a result, will reap multiple health advantages. Simply refraining from the purchasing and consumption of meat products could contribute to saving the lives of thousands of animals. At the end of the day, cows, chickens, and pigs are animals and should not be seen as steak, chicken, and bacon. Human beings and animals are all Earth's creations; if it is not vital for survival, humans have no right to end the lives of fellow species.
Page Break
Works Cited
Clement, Grace. “‘Pets or Meat’? Ethics and Domestic Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 46–57. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.1.0046.
Devine, Philip E. “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism.” Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 206, 1978, pp. 481–505. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3749877.
Fetissenko, Maxim. “Beyond Morality: Developing a New Rhetorical Strategy for the Animal Rights Movement.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 2, 2011, pp. 150–175. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0150
“Healthwatch.” Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, no. 14, 1992, pp. 10–12. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4547989.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 18, 2004, pp. 229–245. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3840934.
Sapontzis, Steve F. “The Debate Over Eating Meat.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 121–125. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.2.2.0121
For many years, there has been an ongoing discussion on whether animal protein is an essential aspect of the human diet. In today's world, meat is seemingly served with every meal: for instance, bacon for breakfast, grilled chicken for lunch, and a hamburger for dinner. However, recent studies have proven that although many people are accustomed to consuming fellow beings of this earth, it is not needed to sustain a healthy life. Following an herbivorous diet provides multiple moral and health-related benefits, and people are already taking measures to reduce the use of animal products.
People have strong sentimental connections to animals; however, the bond is usually limited to pets, such as dogs and cats. Although …show more content…
pigs share shockingly similar characteristics and may even possess higher levels of intelligence than their canine counterparts, people still easily disconnect themselves from the pork-providing beings (Clement 47). When the abuse and torment that meat-bearing animals experience daily is revealed to the public eye, they choose to ignore it and continue to shovel the greasy animal flesh into their ravenous mouths. However, when the story of Fred the puppy torturer who abused puppies to obtain cocamone, a chemical that would enhance the flavor of chocolate, surfaced, people were outraged! A person who neglects puppies should be subjected to extreme punishment by law (Norcross 229-230). For some reason the torment of people's beloved four-legged friends is unacceptable, but people will still allow the same kind of torture to occur to cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals. In fact, "billions of animals continue to meet gruesome deaths in slaughterhouses, stockyards, and labs every year," and "[t]here is no evidence that the number of animals raised in industrial farms or killed in slaughter houses and laboratories is declining" (Fetissenko 151). The conditions these animals are born under are unbelievably heart-rending; for instance, "anemic calves imprisoned in narrow crates, sows chained to rape racks, debeaked chickens crammed, up to a dozen at a time, into small cages, and terrified cattle being haphazardly killed and eviscerated" are just some of the cruelties inflicted upon these animals (Sapontzis 121). If animal mistreatment towards canines and felines is frowned upon, the abuse and slaughter of farm animals should also be considered morally wrong. When most people go to the supermarket and purchase a slab of beef, they do not know half of the pain and misery that that animal had went through to satisfy human hunger. While many people will argue by proclaiming "the suffering of nonhuman animals does not matter as much as human suffering," there is no excuse that a single human could conjure up to make the immoral practices less gruesome (Fetissenko 156). Overall, double standards among animals of this earth should be terminated; if a dog can live out its happy years, a pig should be able to do the same. If one is morally righteous, then the pain that meat animals experience on a day to day basis should be enough evidence for him to boycott meat eating and factory farming.
If knowing that one would possibly be giving another animal a better chance at life by simply altering his diet is not enough to make him refrain from consuming the flesh of animals, then perhaps knowing the health benefits would furthermore persuade him.
In today's world, everyone is striving to be "healthy". Fad diets circulate among magazines, social media, and even through word of mouth. Becoming an herbivorous eater could make being healthy effortless, especially since there are so many meat and animal alternatives in the market. It has been proved by many doctors and dieticians "that the consumption of animal food products is unnecessary for optimal health at any stage of life"(Fetissenko 156). The common beliefs that milk strengthens bones and that meat is the only way of consuming high amounts of protein are simply myths. In fact, vegetarians have been proven to have higher amounts of bone density when compared to their carnivorous counterparts (Healthwatch 10). Furthermore, many people are on budgets today. It would only make since to discontinue purchasing meat since it tends to be on the pricier side; so, transitioning into a vegetarian lifestyle would not only be healthier, but could ultimately save money (Healthwatch 10). Fat-rich foods, such as hamburgers, are commonly found in a Westerner's diet; however, these delicious, grease-dripping foods can lead to heart disease and other medical complications. If one does not ingest the fat-filled meals, then there may …show more content…
be some protection against heart disease (Healthwatch 10). Some may argue that a meatless lifestyle can lead in vitamin deficiencies, but there are many supplements available. Also, eating nutrient rich foods, such as legumes and sesame seeds, could provide zinc and calcium (Healthwatch 11). Any diet can become hazardous if not performed correctly; so, if one has a nutrient rich diet and takes sufficient supplements, one could safely execute an herbivorous diet (Healthwatch 10). With this information in mind, consuming less animal products is a wise decision, as it could save the lives of animals and be beneficial to human health.
Despite the sufficient evidence that proves that vegetarianism has multiple moral and health benefits, there are still people who argue against a plant-based diet.
Although multiple studies show that animals can and do feel pain, people do not want to accept this. People do not want to admit that the bacon on their ideal breakfast plate came from a tortured, life-deprived pig. As a result, they develop the ideas that animal pain does not matter as much as human pain to feel better about themselves (Fetissenko 155). Apparently, the "bellowing, squawking, moaning, and screeching—but not 'complaining' --animals who are farmed do not really feel pain at all"(Sapontzis 122). Then there are other people who, in fact, do know that the animals the that they so willingly consume are experiencing extreme amounts of agony. Their argument against vegetarianism is that humans will experience pain if meat eating ceases; and, even worse, it will be an economic pain to demolish meat industries (Devine 485). This is yet another failed attempt to justify the use of animal products. Overall, "it is impossible to come up with a coherent moral justification for consuming animal food products unless we are willing to accept 'we like it' as a sufficient justification" (Fetissenko 156). People will create many excuses to account for their eating of meat, but deep down they know that the consumption of animal products comes with cruel animal practices. If one is morally concerned about animals, they
should resist factory farming and refrain from consuming animal products instead of conjuring up justifications for what they are doing.
The animal rights movement has been on-going for decades and will remain continuous for years to follow. The horrible deaths that many farm animals meet to satisfy human taste buds must end. Until animal treatment is moral and humane, many people will continue to follow meatless diets and, as a result, will reap multiple health advantages. Simply refraining from the purchasing and consumption of meat products could contribute to saving the lives of thousands of animals. At the end of the day, cows, chickens, and pigs are animals and should not be seen as steak, chicken, and bacon. Human beings and animals are all Earth's creations; if it is not vital for survival, humans have no right to end the lives of fellow species.
Page Break
Works Cited
Clement, Grace. “‘Pets or Meat’? Ethics and Domestic Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2011, pp. 46–57. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.1.0046.
Devine, Philip E. “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism.” Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 206, 1978, pp. 481–505. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3749877.
Fetissenko, Maxim. “Beyond Morality: Developing a New Rhetorical Strategy for the Animal Rights Movement.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 1, no. 2, 2011, pp. 150–175. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0150
“Healthwatch.” Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity, no. 14, 1992, pp. 10–12. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4547989.
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 18, 2004, pp. 229–245. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3840934.
Sapontzis, Steve F. “The Debate Over Eating Meat.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012, pp. 121–125. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.2.2.0121