Registrato: 29/07/19 12:22
Posted by Winniem on November 12th , 2018
The debate on whether humans should eat meat is a progressive issue in which some oppose and others support it on their grounds. There is no doubt that human evolution has had a significant linkage with meat in different ways. The human digestive tract is not similar to that of the herbivores since it has enzymes that evolved to digest meat. The practice of domesticating animals in the traditional societies enhanced meat consumption than any other category of foods throughout history. The research focuses on the issue of meat-eating by humans and has a basis on certain issues as discussed.
Do you think eating meat is unethical?
There is a consensus that animal suffering is an evil thing, and people should avoid it by all means. The present day slaughterhouses practices elicit a negative reaction among the public due to the issue of killing animals for consumption. Some agencies propose the reduction of the animals transported for slaughter as an attempt to reduce animal suffering. I think that eating meat is ethical, but the activities involved in the process are unethical. It is a controversial issue since meat is a source of protein and the human body is designed to digest such type of food , unlike other animals. The perceptions of the philosophers and the ethicists are diverse about animal slaughter. Painful killing is unacceptable since it subjects the animal to unnecessary suffering. However, there can be the painless killing of the animals that lack a clear sense of the future. I think that eating meat is ethical on the ground that there can be alternative methods of acquiring meat from the animal without subjecting it to suffering. In essence, controlled meat consumption is good for health due to the nutritional value it has in comparison to other proteins. The issue is controversial since some other people believe that the religious guidelines on meat eating should be the reference for the practice. Others believe that animals and human beings should enjoy the similar treatment and have equal rights (Regan , 2004). Another issue of concern regards animal husbandry in which it results in increased emissions of greenhouse gasses. The easiest method to control it is to rear the animals in an indoor space other than outdoor and collect the gasses before emission. However, the indoor spaces are not good for the animals since it deprives them the possibility of a natural life (Smil, 2013).
Is it wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish?
Some studies suggest that it is environmentally friendly to reduce the consumption of meat and focus on eating vegetables and plants. However , meat eating is part of the human culture, and it can be challenging to switch. As nations develop regarding economic measures, meat consumption increases. The global meat production is on the rise especially in the developing countries and usually practiced as confined and intensive (Kaplan , 2012). The general world population prefers to remain meat eaters other than vegetarians that increase the rate of meat production in the developing countries. The issue raises the question as to whether people should become vegetarians for the sake of the environment and the animals.
It is wrong to raise and kill animals for human beings to eat meat and fish since the benefits are linked to one party and not both. People should stop killing animals for food due to the adverse effects to the environment and the animals. However, it is not appropriate to enforce the shift of interest without an alternative since humans have a culture of meat eating. Scientists argue that meat can be produced by in vitro technology that does not have animal suffering or killing. The animals arise from a cell, and it is possible to obtain the cells without killing the animal (Hopkins & Dacey , 2008). The use of in vitro meat is likely to raise the question of whether it is natural or artificial. However, the practice results in both natural and artificial meat due to the mode of production. The general public considers natural as the free grazing animals that live in the countryside. Such animals are not under scrutiny by human activities and can be acceptable for consumption. The difference between animal suffering and killing makes it necessary to define the animals that ought to die for human consumption. Animal suffering is always considered bad, but animal killing is relative. Thus , killing the free-grazing animals for human consumption may be an acceptable source of meat for the consumer. The major problem arises in the practices at the slaughterhouses since many people seem to have a liking for the animals living in the natural habitats but are not comfortable with the way they are killed (Kaplan, 2012).
The idea of viewing animals as property makes it challenging to protect the interests of the animals. Animal ethics philosophy is a challenging issue to address due to the notion that they are inferior to human beings and hence can have control over them. However, I think that humans and animals have significant similarities that define them , and none should assume superiority to the other. Hence, rearing and killing animals for the production of meat is unethical. There ought to be an appropriate alternative to the issue to ensure that meat consumption continues but does not subject animals to suffering.
Do you think humans Need to Ea