They also spend considerable time arguing the complexities of local food and fair trade markets. The real moral of this family, however, is about their inability to overcome trading off their own high-minded ethics provided at length by Motavalli in favor of the consumer convenience that supports their busy and wealthy lifestyles. From an examination of their groceries, purchased at Wild Oats Natural Marketplace, Singer and Mason take up a discussion of the organic movement, which contains important revelations about the rise of organic factory farms as the latest unethical business niche p.
- The Winner of Our Contest on the Ethics of Eating Meat - The New York Times;
- dignity of labour essay writing?
- Primary Sidebar?
- mobile sms thesis paper.
- The Winner of Our Contest on the Ethics of Eating Meat.
- essay influence of television?
- essay on importance of obeying traffic rules.
This is followed by what many will take to be a controversial discussion of the pros and cons of GM foods, wherein they refuse to completely refute the corporate-state party line that such food could be socially beneficial. Still, it cannot be said that the book fails to make room for its audience to share their own opinions or grocery lists. The text and political vision laid out within the book are class conscious, but hardly Marxist.
Issues of global equity, worker welfare,9 agribusiness subsidies and the unsustainable consumer culture that feeds from them, as well as corporations which short-change society through rapacious profit-seeking are all on the agenda.
- The Ethics of Eating by Peter Singer - Project Syndicate;
- best american essays 2011.
- Site Search Navigation.
Still, The Way We Eat not only under-theorizes the problems of how class intersects with the politics of food, it manages to replicate some of those very problems. For example, the book implies that it works from a tripartite economic schema of lower class, middle class, and those who are financially well-off. In fact, however, Singer and Mason include two rich families — whom the book asks Americans to emulate as much as possible — and a rural, working class Southern family that serves to model the unflattering national dietary standard. The text gives the Farbs every opportunity to spin their vegan family values as a countercultural, college town liberalism whose existence in Bob Doleville10 is explained as one part family history and one part missionary work for the movement.
Clearly, market demographics must have been favorable for Wild Oats to open and operate in the staunchly conservative Johnson County, Kansas. There is one exception.
THE ETHICS OF EATING MEAT by m self on Prezi
However, they choose to look away from racist and classist issues presented by the family itself. Old New England. Chadwicks, Biddles, and Barrettes. This mixture of racism and classism probably is representative of America, unfortunately. Yet, it also serves to call into question whether the families chosen by Singer and Mason can serve as good ethical models, and raises the question if they, like so many in the vegan and animal rights movements, are single-issue in political outlook and unable to grasp the larger social context of dietary and animal welfare or rights issues.
The Way We Eat asks us to believe that the three families it portrays are important because they are forms of market archetypes. It seems clear, however, that abolitionists, liberationists, and all other manner of radical progressives will have difficulty locating their lifestyles in the book. Usually, after some internal debate, questioning and soul-searching, audiences of these films report shifts in their dietary norms towards the adoption of veganism.
Acknowledging the power of such media, then, it also clear that the visceral images of suffering are far too difficult for many to watch, and so a significant amount of people remain willfully blind to the realities behind their food. Though the written depictions of the farms they visit are often quite harrowing themselves, people should be able to read about and learn of what they would not otherwise dare to view. These films search for the hearts and guts of their audiences, whereas a book such as The Way We Eat speaks to their minds in the hopes of persuading people to alter their dietary behavior.
Unfortunately, most people in society are not philosophers and this assuredly is not the Age of Enlightenment. Singer and Mason need a mechanism, then, to overcome the natural tendency of people to evoke forms of reactionary psychology when threatened at the level of their personal identity we all know the adage: you are what you eat.
In this way, they forego the politics of an uncompromising animal liberation philosophy or strong animal rights approach for a mass marketable animal welfarism. But surely the present Green Scare does not cut so deep that the radical animal advocacy and ecological movements cannot better serve as progenitors of ideals to which people everywhere can aspire. If universal vegetarianism, much less veganism, remains a utopian dream, there is too much murder and pain in our society I believe to settle comfortably for the political gain of a happier hot dog.
Notes 1 Singer explains in a recent interview with Mother Jones Gilson, that his activism is based in the pragmatics of a realpolitik worldview. He goes on to say that he sees the European Union as perhaps providing a political system for changing economic and social structures, but believes that in the US the market provides the best mechanism for change. Singer claims the government here has not been responsive to consumer challenges of major business interests. This is largely, though not entirely, true. Otherwise, it is more gravely symptomatic of his ideological liberalism, such that his animal welfarist and politically reformist views mutually support one another.
To speak philosophically, veganism is for them probably a necessary but not sufficient condition of ethical life and social change. Hence, the legal objection to waste-reducing freegans is clearly ideologically motivated by the axiomatic capitalist demand to preserve the tradition of the commodization of private property at all costs. This was strengthened in by the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act.
Moreover, they explain that meat eating is an ethic that adversely impacts on human rights. Some people across the world starve to death; yet, others comfortably feed on grains from farms in rich countries.
The Moral Status of Animals
In a statistical research on demand for meat in a western country, a diet contained four times more of land a vegan diet could contain and two times more than the diet of a vegetarian. It is evident that meat eating is in a big way, ethically unjustifiable based on its impacts on animal welfare and ecological ecosystem. In achieving ethics in the way human beings consume meat, there is need to address measures for reduction of mass production of animal products.
Lastly, individuals should avoid being regular meat consumers, but instead, develop rational dietary routines Chignell, Cuneo and Halteman It is not practical to consume meat without killing animals. However, veganism, conscientious omnivores, and vegetarianism focus on imposing ethical consumption and nonviolence actions. Moreover, these options are more economical and impose limited cruelty as compared to meat eating.
Animals are ineffective in protein conversion. As a result, the globally increasing population will consequently starve of hunger and be subjected to body malformations Miller and Spoolman The latter is morally uncalled for and unethical. Therefore, it is clear that adopting other forms of feeding as opposed to meat eating is a solution to food shortage and violation of animal welfare.
follow site Veganism, conscientious omnivores and vegetarianism are not indications of self-denial and asceticism but rather; ethically perfect actions that require considerations. Defenders of ethical eating assert that irrational meat consumption is regrettable but needs essential responsive reactions to bring up a population that highly upholds ethics in eating.
Confining animals in cages means that people have to grow food for them, regardless of the production costs that comes with it. Consequently, these animals burn up large amounts of energy in maintaining body warmth, breathing, and bone formation, and the outcomes are minimal and unsatisfactory for human survival.
Feeding operations for meat production greatly rely on croplands where foods are grown. The latter become less economical and irrational for growing animal crops rather than raising food for human consumption. Thirteen-grain pounds are estimated to produce one beef pound. Besides, a single pound of pork is generated by a total of six pounds of grains. These figures are morally gratifying regarding production and consumption of meat. A single pound of this meat holds more water than a single grain, inducing that meat production for consumption is a globally recognized threat to water, land, and energy demands Niman.
According to most vegetarians, meat eating is unethical as it often leads to cruel treatment of animals, provides poor living conditions and dents them. Nutritionists should shift their focus from omnivores as sources of proteins and instead advice people to consider other organic sources such as farm products. This will reduce factory farming and improve the quality of meat.
Bramble, Ben, and Bob Fischer. The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.
Cookies and Privacy
New York, N. Y: Oxford University Press, This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages. Subscribe to view the full document. I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer.
In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero. Santa Monica College. Uploaded By tommyho. What three examples of people eating meat do Singer and Mason begin the essay with?
Related the ethics of eating meat singer and mason essay
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved