Cody Miller
Philosophy of Food
Dr. Williams
6 December 2014
Eating Animals: Morally Wrong[U1]
In America, the majority of meat consumed comes from factory farms, where animals are abused and slaughtered. In fact, according to the USDA, ninety-seven percent of all animals killed in the United States are used for food production. There is no necessary reason that these innocent animals should endure the pain and suffering they go through. Unless factory farming practices come to a sudden stop, the meat one consumes most likely came from an animal that went through extreme suffering. In this essay I will argue that the inhumane treatment of animals is morally wrong and we should at least make an attempt to draw this mistreatment to a halt[U2].
On these large factory farms, most of the animals are not even granted the privilege to see the light of day. For example, pigs are kept in cages called gestation crates, which are significantly small in size and cause them to go insane. This means that before they go to the slaughterhouse, they are not even able to live decent lives that animals deserve. Cattle and chicken are treated no better than pigs. They are kept in small confinement as well and are usually weak and brittle by the time they are ready to be slaughtered. On top of all this, egg laying chicken’s beaks are seared off in order to prevent fighting within the crates, a process that is extremely painful for the poor animal. Is it really worth having animals endure excruciating pain in order for us humans to enjoy the luxury of meat? The nutrition that can be gained from meat is readily available in other sources of food. For example, the fats, carbohydrates, and protein that we need to live can be found in legumes like soybeans. Even the most strenuous activities, like athletics, can be done without consuming meat. In Mylan Engel’s essay “The Immorality of Eating Meat” he exclaims, “the list of world-class vegetarian athletics is quite long” (873). Therefore the public assumption that meat is necessary to compete in athletic activities is invalid[U3].
In Tom Regan’s “Animal Rights” he argues that nonhuman animals should have rights because they are “subjects-of-a-life”. They have desires, beliefs, and memories just like we do. He says, “behind their eyes, our animal companions are complicated psychological creatures who are no less subjects-of-a-life than we are[U4].” Animals share many qualities with the human race. If a dog were in a cage he would that he wants to come out and be free by using his paws to dig at the bars, indicating discomfort. In the same situation, a human would show discomfort by trying to pry the bars apart. Animals are sentient beings and should not be used for their means. These animals do not give consent to be murdered and do not approve of being tortured. Instead, their actions would signify that they would much rather be free-living creatures, rather than being seen as food. Animals are not stupid. For instance, a cow will try to run away as soon as they see the other cows being slaughtered on the conveyer belt. This would indicate that animals have a conscious mind. Since animals do not give us consent to take their life, it would be morally wrong to kill them in order to simply use them as means, and completely discount their needs[U5].
One objection to my argument might be that factory farming provides the United States with jobs which helps stabilize the economy. However, most of the factory farm workers are migrants who do not live in the United States and do not complain about low wages and harmful conditions. Factory farmers suffer an arrangement of chronic illnesses from breathing in hazardous gases. These migrants have no other choice but to work in these farms because they need to support their families, they do not enjoy working. In fact, most workers quit after their first few years because of the conditions.The factory farming corporations are putting their workers in dangerous working conditions for corporate greed. In my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefits for these workers since they are risking the lives for minimum wage. Not only are factory farming corporations killing innocent animals, but they are indirectly killing their workers as well.
Another objection may be that animals do not deserve rights because they are not human.In[U6] Peter Singers article “All Animals are Equal” he exclaims “the extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not mean that we treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups”. Instead, the basic principle of equality is saying we should give animals equal consideration and equal consideration may lead to different treatment regarding the animal. For example, we gave men and women the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean we give that same right to dogs because they do not think rationally about the future. Another example of this idea would be that women have the right to abortion, but it would be naïve to give men that right because they cannot conceive. Animals are different than humans; therefore they require equal consideration of interests, but different treatment[U7]. Also, not granting animals rights because they are not human would be considered speciesism since we are rejecting species membership. Speciesism goes hand in hand with racism and we deemed that wrong a long time ago. Thus, animals are different than humans, but that does not mean we are able to mistreat them and use them for their means.
The final objection may relate to the Christian ideal that God placed animals on this earth for food. In the book of Genesis in the bible “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26-28 ). However, it is also said that “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prverbs 12:10).This means that a righteous man will care for the needs of their animals. Factory Farms definitely do not care for their animals considering that the animals endure unnecessary pain before they are slaughtered. Therefore, this objection becomes invalid because animals should not suffer according to the bible.
In conclusion, mistreating these innocent animals is morally wrong since we use them simply for their nutritional value. These animals have many of the same behavioral qualities as humans, but yet we completely discount their needs. The killing of these animals is not justified by our lust of meat. It is very possible to live a healthy lifestyle without meat in our bodies. Some utilitarians may think the desire for meat outweighs the amount of animal suffering. However, brutally treating animals is not moral because they feel pain, and are sentient beings that do not give consent to be murdered.
[U1]Grade: 82
[U2]Not the most controversial of thesis. Circular. No exampes for addressing the latter claim.
[U3]How does this support the thesis? The treatment of ff animals is wrong b/c meat is not necessary?
[U4]Citation?
[U5]Animals have rights. Not clear about organization: treatment of animals is wrong because they have rights. Better than first premise
[U6]Transition? We move to utilitarianism. The explanation doesn’t match the objection.
[U7]explain