Ethics of Meat Eating, Research Paper Example

Meat eating has for decades been one of the most common Phenomenons in the livelihood of humanity. A good number of people enjoy taking meat for a number of reasons; others social while others cultural beliefs (Foer 14). Nonetheless, there is also a group of people that are entirely against meat eating and such ethical issues have been in existence for a long period.

Over the centuries, people have developed certain ethical ideas about meat eating and such revolve around their cultural, social, ethical, and religious practices. With a great global diversity, people’s perceptions about these issues have been different with one group accepting and the other totally refuting the idea of eating meat (Sapontzis 5). Below are some of the analyses of the above factors that largely rule people’s ethical opinions regarding meat eating?

Cultural factors

Culture plays a major role in the decisions and practices that an individual engages in. most people were born into certain cultural practices where they found themselves eating meat. Such communities are in the tendency of keeping many animals and slaughtering them from time to time to consume their meats. In other cultures, however eating certain meat is not allowed. For instance in the Indian culture, eating cow meat is contrary to their cultural beliefs. Such communities maintain strong cultural doctrines that help them keep such sanctimonious values (Harvey 23). At the same time, there are other cultures that consists of vegetarians; people who believe in taking vegetables and that alone. Such cultures encourage their members on the importance of such vegetables and often have strong sentimental beliefs about their cultures.

Social factors

As well, there are certain social factors that may control people’s tendency to consume meat. Social factors refer to the environmental setting that brings various kinds of people together. Social factors and values are those that guide the code of conduct and social living and interaction among the people of a given community. Through interactions, people may be forced to adopt the culture of another group; such cultures may include not consuming meat or certain specific animals’ meat. Living in an environment where people do not consume certain animal meat can easily change your perception (Taylor 31). For instance, living in a social setting where people do not take camel meat can easily make one completely abstain from taking such. Therefore, the social setting that one dwells in has a great influence on their perception and ethics about taking meat.

Religious factors

This is by far the greatest factor that defines ethics for eating meat. The world has many religions and each religion has got its doctrines regarding consumption of meat. These doctrines vary from one religion to the other. For instance Christians, believe that God provided them with the animals for their own consumption hence consuming meat is highly acceptable and God approves of it. The Hindu believes in taking some meat while prohibiting some. For instance they do not take cow meat because it forms part of their worship. Their religious doctrines revolve around animals hence they give great considerations when consuming certain meats (Harvey 25). The Muslims also have their beliefs about consumption of meat. These people believe that consuming certain animal meat is very evil. One such is consumption of pork; this religion considers pigs evil and cannot consume any pig meat.

The above beliefs have their consequences and implications. Many people believe that going against any of these rule and regulations can attract supernatural punishment or curse on the victim. Human beings naturally have the fear of the unknown in them and taking risk especially on issues that are linked to supernatural existence and powers may not be easy (Harvey 40). Therefore, these agreements and beliefs bind these people strongly and make them pay their full allegiance to the same. In these instances, the punishment may come in the form of diseases, famine, deaths, and even poverty among other things.

In the current world with the high levels of globalization, people have come up with various ethics about meat eating and such ethics guide their preferences in what they consume. Such ethics include theories and beliefs that people have formulated to either encourage or discourage meat consumption. These theories may be from dietetics and other health campaigners who wish to present their opinions about consumption of meat For instance; vegetarians in the current age believe that meat ought not to be consumed since eth protein contents found in meat can be found in other vegetarian foods (Steiner 12). Some of these may include vitamins and proteins that can be found in other foods. Consequently, their research has also proved that such plant foods are much healthier than meats. For this reason, such people strongly campaign for vegetarianism and discourage people from taking meat.

Consequently, many health programs discourage people from taking meat especially the red meat. For instance, people fighting diabetes, obesity and other weight loss diseases. Such people often discourage others from eating meeting citing the dangers and the health risks attached. Heart attack is one of the greatest killer diseases worldwide and consumption of meat in huge quantities may greatly accelerate its levels of occurrence in an individual’s body.People living or brought up in such environments have incontestable beliefs and will not consume meat regardless of their desires or push to do the same (Singer and Mason 34). The lack of dietary necessity in meat consumption largely prevents them from consuming it.

Other meat eating ethics are brought about by the manner in which the animals are brought up. This is attached to the type of foods that the animals are fed on. For instance, the nature of food that pigs often feed on can easily make one detest from taking meat (Harvey 60). Equally, the environment that such animals are brought up may equally discourage others from taking the meat. Animals brought up in filthy places may cause certain people to desist from eating meat.

Other groups may stop eating meat in observance to the animal rights. Like humans, animals have rights to good living as well as protection from killing. In fact, many animal activist groups are currently pushing the animal rights to be instituted to prevent consumption of meat (Milligan 15). They believe that animals just like humans feel pain and they do not deserve the torture and pain that they are taken through during slaughter. This brings some logics though it may be contradictive to other people’s belief that God gave work force to control and subdue all the living things. This more or less the same places the fate of animals in the hands of man who may choose to slaughter or keep the animals.

Most recently, a scientific ethical philosophy was presented and this argued that animals that have consciousness and sensitive to pain ought not to be eaten (Singer and Mason 27). Such animals may only include those that have the central nervous system. The punk Band NOFX in their song also echoed this. They argued that what ought to be eaten are those that have no face and no ears; have no eyes and cannot cry tears and they have no spinal cord either. Consuming them only helps in putting away their misery and pain. According to them, consumption of such may not be so selfish like the consumption of animals.

Argument

One of the most ordinary ethical objections in the killing and eating of these sentient beings is that many people especially the current generation may no longer have so much dietary necessity for meat consumption. The nutrients found in meat and required by the human body can be found in other non-meat food substances. Thus slaughtering animals with an intent of just pleasing human taste may not be a very justifiable idea.

An argument presented by Peter Singer the pioneer of animal liberation foundation, stated that if other alternative survival means exist then it prudent to select an option that does not bring harm to the animals (Singer and Mason 27). This argument may be a bit sensible however; critics have consistently expressed their dissatisfaction with this point regarding it as shallow argument and without logics.

I am also on the opinion that the above ethics presented by peter singer may be a foolish philosophy. This is because it only looks on one side of the story the animals alone. One may say if animals feel pain and anguish, the plants go through the same in their efforts to survive in the cruel environments (Harvey 10). Hence when one stops consuming meat, the next automatic alternative will be the plants which may be feeling equally exact measure of pain given that they are living things as well (this may be depicted in a less noticeable way). However, it is a fact to state that no living thing would wish to die for another one to be sustained.

Talking about sustainability and may be an ecological aspect such as overfishing brings us back to the human aspect of overpopulation. If ethical living would mean living within the most ecological benign manner then many people would agree that not eating meat would be foolish and unethical since animals form the largest part of sustainable agricultural systems (Milligan 14). Such nature of life would require large consumption of vegetation, which is equally dangerous to the global climate as well as the overall ecological circles. Consumption of animal meat therefore helps in balancing the energy levels contributed by both plants and animals in the ecological atmosphere.

Giving up the culture of meat eating that has probably been existence since the time immemorial may have a great impact on us both genetically and socially. The health standards that people maintain today may not be easy. Meat is good and very healthy to the human body if consumed in proper proportions. Hence changing this consumption habit would not be easy and may not make any sense (Sapontzis 37). The only difference that would be brought with meat abstinence is the increase in animal population and lack of space to run other important activities that have much significance to human livelihood.

Eating meat of animals that have been humanely raised and slaughtered may not only be ethical but also of very much significance in the current society. Consumption of purely vegetables may equally be a good idea. However, the current world is full of democracy and an individual has the right to choose what he/ she consumes (Singer and Mason 27). Veganism that is widely practiced by many people could be sanctimoniously at its best and in its worst form it could depict a very harmful form of arrogance. In my opinion, it’s probably the best strategy for people intending to lose weight fast.

Relatively I tend to agree with Richard Wrangham’s book catching fire. The biological anthropologist states in his book that just in the manner cooking of food made us human, they could have been the means through which our ancient genes tripped into the current human ones (Steiner 34). In his suggestion, he states that this came about through the consumption of calorie dense food, which relatively enables the brain to grow and the genes to spread from one generation to the other. Meat formed the main source of these calorie dense foods; an implication that we need to include in our diets for proper developments.

In simple terms, giving up eating what we have had for centuries and has made us into the beings that we are today greatly endangers our social and genetically livelihood. Such an act may greatly demean the nature of humanity and may lead to further modification of genetic structures, an act whose consequences may not be very pleasing (Steiner 13). Meat consumption is pleasurable and such pleasure is good and highly recommendable in such a world full of stressing moments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, animals exist because of humans care since it is through the humans that their offspring develop. Consuming them and preserving their offspring would be the best meat eating ethics (Milligan 28). This would not only benefit humans but also bring an ecological balance in the number of animals that exist in the world. Such number would not be overwhelming such that man would have to scramble for vegetation with animals. The same would also ensure that climatic conditions are kept at their rightful levels. Despite many ideologies that people have regarding consumption of animal meat, desisting from eating meat may be a great sign of foolishness since it would have both adverse impacts on both the humans and environment that we live in. The ecological food chain needs to be maintained in order to transform the world to be a better and safer place to live in.

The animals may have right to live but would this fulfill the creators reason for creating man according to the bible or Koran? Observing the meat eating ethics in a positive perspective would be the best way to go since life is all about dying and creating a life. The activists complaining about the pain and agony that animals go through during slaughter should also consider plants that are cut daily to ensure the animals survive (Sapontzis 19). Plants may not be able to talk but they have life and just like any other living thing, taking away life is a painful experience. Animal eating is a reality that people need to face and learn to live with regardless of their religious, cultural, and ethical backgrounds.

Works Cited

Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating animals. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2009. Print.

Milligan, Tony. Beyond animal rights food, pets and ethics. London: Continuum, 2010. Print.

Sapontzis, S. F.. Food for thought: the debate over eating meat. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2004. Print.

Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. The ethics of what we eat: why our food choices matter. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale ;, 2008. Print.

Steiner, Gary . Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals in the world. New York: University of Pittsburgh Pre, 2010. Print.

Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview, 2008. Internet resource.

Harvey, Brian P. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010. Print.