Ethics of Eating Meat

It was about 2.6 million years ago that the first animal protein had become a substantial

component of the food intake of earlier humans. It was convenient to be an herbivore, fruits and

veggies do not flee, simply put. However, they are not so much calorie-rich, either. One popular

reasoning in favor of consuming meat is that it would be a component of the organic order and

several other organisms are doing so to tinier, poorer, and/or less advanced beings. Asked to take

to its conclusion, however, this could rationalize any unfavorable or harmful basic instinct we

possess. Surely, trying to feed ourselves and trying to sexually assault or kill a human being are

quite distinct concepts with alternate meanings and outcomes, but they are also "organic" urges,

deep-rooted in the ancestral portion of our subconscious. "Organic" urges could be both ethically

positive and negative.

Vegans’ Argument

Vegans make the argument, much as if we assume human beings to

disregard their unjust organic urges remaining on from our monkey and prehistoric periods even

though we recognize that inflicting needless harm to life forms is unreasonable. Why we do not

keep having similar standards to ourselves when it relates to oppressing or utilizing other self-

aware and sub-intelligent life forms as meals? They make the argument that although man is an

animal, he is a much higher cognitive creature with a larger potential for logical behavior and

sympathy, and therefore he bears the responsibility of behaving more morally, particularly

toward those lesser place animals. They make the argument that if it could not be correct among

humans, nor will it ever be appropriate among humans and animals.

A carnivorous balanced meal that contains meals obtained from healthy

animals is moral as it puts into presence animals that dwell in joy and prevents the presence of

animals that dwell in suffering. The morality of consuming meat is more poignantly noticed by

envisioning the actuality of the abolishment of animals. Trying to morally assimilate the

possession of farm animals and the possession of slave laborers is wobbly since this abolishment

of slave workers and farm animals produces completely distinct results. Human beings can take

care of themselves. However, if the possession of farm animals stopped, we will not observe the

liberty of the animals, but the approaching extirpation of the organisms.

Meat’s effect on body

The brain is a very nutritious part of the body, and if you would like

to develop a significant one, consuming at least some animal protein will give you much more

calorie intake with much less endeavor than with a non-meat dish. What's even more, while the

animal muscles tasted directly from the dead animal require a great deal of yanking and tearing,

which necessitates large, sharp teeth and a potent bite—once we discovered to process our food,

we might do away with that as well, looking to develop tinier teeth or a less noticeable and

stocky jaw. This, in effect, may well have contributed to further improvements in the head and

spine, preferring a bigger brain, improved osmoregulation, and more mature voice glands.

Animals Suffering Theory

Let us now compare this opinion – that animals are suffering –

to that of a theorist, who claims that it is difficult for humans to retain animals as their

possessions, and for those animals to not struggle. The consequence of such perspectives is that
this is not ideal for animals to remain as either wild animals (if you are of the opinion that wild

creatures have often terrible lives) or a forest. The path to mitigating deprivation, however, is to

abolish animals and pet-ownership organizations and to participate in an all-out attack on wild

animals. Only after humanity is the very last lifeforms to endure will they be reduced.

Either pig are bound for consumption or dogs are intended for dotting, the face of man

seems to have no alternative but to be inhuman. However, imagine another option – one that is

somewhat contrary to the belief that men are the source of animal cruelty and that they will kill

all wild animals. It is likely that the only manner wherein animals may reach this life and feel

more pleasure than pain is for animals, being under the control of human beings.

From a young age, we are somewhat trained to believe that cattle, goats, poultry, chicks,

etc. are livestock. The aim of the cows is to generate dairy meat, animal protein, etc. The aim of

livestock is to make meat, bacon, etc. Poultry lays eggs, supplies meat, etc. The aim of a dog/cat

is to offer friendship, caring, and love. A regular human, if they see a sheep, a chicken, etc., they

do not think of it as a pet. You cannot find a sheep in a local pet shop or a donkey, and you can

find a cat and a dog that drives the viewpoint of pets more.

There seem to be, in reality, many methods of grazing cattle for meat, methods of making

cattle an ecological benefit instead of a burden, and methods in which wildlife may not live a life

of misery. Imagine, for instance, a typical mix of farming containing a wide range of species,

grazing fields, and gardens. Here, manure is not a source of pollution or waste material; it is a

precious asset that contributes to land productivity. Rather than stealing food out from the

starved people, grass-fed livestock generates sufficient caloric intake through lands unfit for

tilling.
 When livestock is being used for work, pulling ploughs, consuming insects, and

processing manure, they minimize the dependency on fossil fuels and the urge of using

insecticides. However, neither do animals that live outside need a large amount of water for

hygiene. Farm animals seem to have a valuable part to perform in farming that is not only a

manufacturing center but also an ecosystem. Waves, interactions, and associations between trees,

plants, bugs, compost, animals, land, groundwater, and humans on a live field shape a complex

network, "natural" in its actual meaning, something of nature that could not eventually fall into

the same classification as an animal slaughter cement plant. Any material environment is the

habitat of plants and animals, and it would seem fair that farming, which aims to be as true to

earth as feasible, should include both.

Production and Productivity

Such an opinion is based on the unjustified presumption that

the existing meat and dairy industry intends to increase wealth. It definitely wants to enhance

revenue, which implies maximizing not "manufacturing" but "productivity".  In cash terms, it is

much more effective to get a thousand livestock in a high-density factory farm; to consume

wheat on a biologically dependent plantation than it is to have fifty livestock eating grass on each

of the small farms. It is much more effective in money terms and likely more effective in relation

to human labor. Lesser farm workers are required, and that is regarded as a better thing in a

social structure that reduces farming.

It is hard to properly recognize the ethical consequences of consuming animals without

having thought about the meaning of life and mortality. Alternatively, there is a risk of

dishonesty, arising from our disconnection from the reality of dying behind every cut of flesh we
consume. The cultural and psychosocial width from the abattoir to the dining table protects us all

from the pain and terror that the animals experience as they are prompted to the slaughterhouse,

and transforms the live body into "a cut of flesh." That very width is a privilege that our

predecessors did not get: in prehistoric hunters and agriculture communities, slaughtering was

close to the subject, and it was hard to overlook the reality that it was a living, inhaling animal.

Divine Tapestry

There seems to be a period to exist and a period to perish.  This is the

pattern of life. If you thought about all this, long-term misery is uncommon in general. Our meat

and dairy industry is benefiting from the long-term misery of livestock, humans, and the

environment, but it is not the sole direction. When a cattle live a cattle's living, when birth and

death are compatible with a perfect nature there seems to be no inherent violation for me in

slaughtering the cattle for meat. Of note, there is discomfort and anxiety when the animal is

brought to the butcher, and that saddens me greatly. There's a lot to be depressed about in living,

but beneath sorrow, there's a happiness that depends not on escaping suffering and optimizing

happiness, but on actually living and very well.

It would also be unfair of me to apply this to an animal, not with myself. To exist with

dignity as a murderer of plants and animals, it is important for someone like me to act correctly

and very well with my lifetime, particularly since these choices have seemed to jeopardize my

ease, protection, and reasonable self-interest, even though, one day, to live correctly is to suffer

consequences. Not only for livestock but also for me, there is a place to celebrate and a time to

leave. What is great enough for every living being is great enough even for me. Consuming meat
does not have to be an act of brazen species-ism, but compatible with a rational surrender to the

forces of death and life.

References

1) ETHICS OF MEAT EATING. (2015, August 21). Retrieved from

http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2015/8/21/ethics-of-meat-eating

2) KLUGER, J. (2016, MARCH 9). Sorry Vegans: Here's How Meat-Eating Made Us

Human. Retrieved from https://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

3) The Ethics of Eating Meat. (2002, March). Retrieved from Charles Eisenstein:

https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ethics-of-eating-meat/

4) The Meat Paradox: How Carnivores Think About Dinner. (2014, February 12). Retrieved

from aps: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/were-only-human/the-meat-

paradox-how-carnivores-think-about-dinner.html

5) WHY IT’S ETHICAL TO EAT MEAT. (2018). Retrieved from Fearless Eating:

https://fearlesseating.net/why-its-ethical-to-eat-meat/