Timothy Hsiao In Defense Of Eating Meat Summary

A Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Foer The standard way of thinking about vegetarianism has it that you either are one or you are not. While it is rarely discussed between omnivores and herbivores over dinner, vegetarians often fall into a category more accurately described as conscientious meat eaters. In Jonathan Safran Foer’s essay, “Against Meat,” he describes his personal plight to become, and remain, a vegetarian through-out his life.

In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan

Summary In this article “Against Meat” Jonathan Safran Foer describes his personal experience with struggling whether he eats meat or not and what he went through to become a vegetarian, his main reason was he didn’t want animals to suffer. Foer had a lot of influence in his life, starting with his grandmother who he considered her as a role model he loved her passion with food, although she had one recipe

Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion.

“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food. Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”.

This short story explains and questions how people find eating animals morally acceptable. Steiner 's short story explains that whenever people think these animals are being treated respectfully they are being ignorant to the fact of how these animals are truly treated; Steiner brings up the fact of how an animals typical horrid life is and how it transitions from its horrid life to being killed by a butcher in a matter of seconds. Moreover, Steiner also adheres to the topic of how unacceptable, it is to kill these animals just for human consumption. Steiner 's purpose in writing this short story is to display to us the fact that eating any animal is not only wrong, but it is just downright unacceptable as it is mass murder of these innocent animals. Finally, Steiner tries to define at his best, what a strict vegan truly

Because it has been proven that animals do, just like humans, it can be argued that their suffering is enough evidence to justify their right to live without explanation, but considering that her argument is more extreme that Rifkin’s, it might be helpful if it had more support. In addition, she goes as far to insist that, “meat eating and animal abuse leads to spiritual disturbance and physical disease”. Without giving any evidence to prove its legitimacy, not only does she leave out any way to prove her assertions, her “spiritual disturbance” claim is vague and the reader confused as to what she means. Despite this, the majority of Frazier’s letter is well supported by the

In the article, “Is It Possible to be a Conscientious Meat Eater”, the authors argue that processed meat can greatly affect the many things in our everyday life. Sunaura and Alexander’s argument is significantly unreliable because of the certain professions both authors yield. As stated in the article “Sunaura is an artist, writer, and activist in Oakland.” “Alexander’s profession is studying philosophy, and ethics in Athens, Georgia.” This shows that neither of them are qualified to argue in the subject of conscientious meat eaters.

According to Elizabeth Harman, an action that kills an animal even painlessly, is an action that harms the animal. If we indeed have strong moral reasons against causing pain to animals, Harman argues we must also have strong moral reasons against killing animals. This raises an objection to the Surprising Claim, which states that we have strong reasons against causing intense pain to animals, but only weak reasons against killing animals. The First View claims that killing an animal deprives it of a positive benefit (future life) but does not harm the animal.

He presents a compelling argument for why we have to recall lowering or casting off our intake of animal products, the use of evidence and records to guide his claims. for example, Foer cites the fact that animal agriculture is chargeable for more greenhouse gas emissions than all kinds of transportation combined. via presenting this statistic in a clean and concise manner, Foer makes a robust case for the environmental blessings of lowering our meat consumption. Foer additionally appeals to our sense of morality and values. He emphasizes the significance of compassion and duty in our food choices, encouraging readers to remember the ethical implications of consuming meat.

Despite the positive ethical implications of 3D printing in the food industry, there are several negative ethical implications that should be considered as well. Comparisons can be made with the controversies surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), in which the technology and supply of GMO seeds has over the years been patented and controlled by biotech conglomerates such as Monsanto (National Research Council, 2000). Similarly, the production of raw food materials utilised for 3D food printing, such as animal tissues and hydrocolloids, is a technologically intensive process. This can potentially be monopolised and controlled by private corporations if existing legal frameworks are excessively protective of intellectual property (IP) rights (Pollan, 2012). Ethical dilemmas exist because while supporters of stringent IP laws may argue that these protections promote corporate innovation and technological advancements (Spectar, 2002), this monopoly on the production technology could impede the global accessibility of these 3D-printed food technologies across geographical regions, income

As diets and health become more and more of a public concern in America. Two authors weigh in on their opinions on how the American public should handle the problem of obesity as well as their solutions to the overwhelming issue. In one article, “Against Meat,” published on the New York Times website in 2009, points out that the solution to obesity should be vegetarianism. Johnathan Foer who is a vegetarian, claims that his diet and way of living is his the way of improving health in the American public. Foer’s article provides a sense of humor as well as personal stories to attempt to persuade his audience for the ethical treatment of animals along with his personal solution for his own health and the health of his family.

In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.

Eating meat is beneficial to humanity, because they provide nourishment that cannot be obtained from other sources. Without the support of animals, humans lack a distinctive diet, that is essential to their well-being. However, since animals are so important to the diet, they deserve great care and respect as well. Humans were always hunters and gathers. They always knew that meat was a big source of protein that helped keep them going(Araki).

Meat of animals gives protein to body. They killed animals for getting nutritional value. Human’s demand for animal is fast growing in the moment. Shop and buffet about meat have increase follow their demand. Dimitrios Chaniotis is manager and researcher that has written article about Is it moral or immoral to kill animals?