Surname 1NameInstructorCourseDateEthics of Eating Meat.docxmattinsonjanel
Surname 1
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Ethics of Eating Meat
The world has evolved across various angles and over time. In fact, the notion of evolution could be pointed towards a course that dictates a change of heart or ideas. In most instances, it is not just the environment around us that changes, people also adapt to change. It is evident from the different types of people that we are able to meet on a daily basis. In such evolution of ideas and development, people have a tendency to develop unique persuasions or even motivations. There are those who have an inclination towards furthering certain ideals. Such orientations define the various agitations that people have sought to further and advance. On one end, we have seen sexual health agitators who argue and advocate for sexual liberalism. One of the most powerful upcoming agitation agendas is the need to agitate for ethical behavior in our eating habits. The aspect that seems to be holding a lot of sway in this whole endeavor is the notion of eating meat. There are two groups pitted against each other arguing for and against the merits of consumption of meat. This paper emphasizes on this aspect and seeks to interrogate the ethical notions behind eating meat. There will also be a discussion on the religious angle that has also, to some extent, sought to fuel the debate.
Meat is acquired from animals that have to be slaughtered for the objective to be achieved. The act of slaughtering these animals means that death is an inevitable consequence of meat eating. Most people cannot bring themselves to reconcile with the fact that meat eating seems to indirectly glorify the random killing of animals for human gratification. It is on this basis that this group of people has established that there is no ethical basis for engaging in the consumption of meat (Lusk and Norwood 109). It presents one face of the argument, merely on the face of it.
According to Sachin Maharaja (n.p), a healthy eating advocate that seeks to advance a cause against the eating of meat by humans, there should be a justification behind the act of eating meat acquired through cruelty to animals. It is importation to appreciate that cruelty in this case is subjective given that it is a personal opinion expressed by the advocate. Sachin (n.p) asserts that humans should be in a position to justify their actions of consuming meat without having to advance or base their argument on the natural order or cause of things (Sachin, n.p).
Satin argues that humans derive so much pleasure from the act of consuming meat. The lingering question that should then follow after such disposition is whether such pleasure should be derived from as painful a process as that which the animals have to undergo for the meat to be acquired. Does the pain and torture that animals undergo during slaughter justify the joy derived from the consumption of such products thereafter? (Kristof, n.p)
The argument by Nicholas Kristof in the New York ...
This is a presentation Dr. Carrie Freeman gave at the first annual Atlanta Veg Fest (www.atlantavegfest.com). The information is largely drawn from sources use in her dissertation's literature review. See works cited at end.
Mercy to Living Beings (Jiva-Kārunya Panchakam) is a treatise addressing two related virtues compassion and ahimsa (non-hurting or non-violence) to nonhuman animals. The poem composed by Narayana Guru in 1914 remains testimony to the Guru's non-dual philosophy and idealistic approach to ahimsa towards all life forms.
Surname 1NameInstructorCourseDateEthics of Eating Meat.docxmattinsonjanel
Surname 1
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Ethics of Eating Meat
The world has evolved across various angles and over time. In fact, the notion of evolution could be pointed towards a course that dictates a change of heart or ideas. In most instances, it is not just the environment around us that changes, people also adapt to change. It is evident from the different types of people that we are able to meet on a daily basis. In such evolution of ideas and development, people have a tendency to develop unique persuasions or even motivations. There are those who have an inclination towards furthering certain ideals. Such orientations define the various agitations that people have sought to further and advance. On one end, we have seen sexual health agitators who argue and advocate for sexual liberalism. One of the most powerful upcoming agitation agendas is the need to agitate for ethical behavior in our eating habits. The aspect that seems to be holding a lot of sway in this whole endeavor is the notion of eating meat. There are two groups pitted against each other arguing for and against the merits of consumption of meat. This paper emphasizes on this aspect and seeks to interrogate the ethical notions behind eating meat. There will also be a discussion on the religious angle that has also, to some extent, sought to fuel the debate.
Meat is acquired from animals that have to be slaughtered for the objective to be achieved. The act of slaughtering these animals means that death is an inevitable consequence of meat eating. Most people cannot bring themselves to reconcile with the fact that meat eating seems to indirectly glorify the random killing of animals for human gratification. It is on this basis that this group of people has established that there is no ethical basis for engaging in the consumption of meat (Lusk and Norwood 109). It presents one face of the argument, merely on the face of it.
According to Sachin Maharaja (n.p), a healthy eating advocate that seeks to advance a cause against the eating of meat by humans, there should be a justification behind the act of eating meat acquired through cruelty to animals. It is importation to appreciate that cruelty in this case is subjective given that it is a personal opinion expressed by the advocate. Sachin (n.p) asserts that humans should be in a position to justify their actions of consuming meat without having to advance or base their argument on the natural order or cause of things (Sachin, n.p).
Satin argues that humans derive so much pleasure from the act of consuming meat. The lingering question that should then follow after such disposition is whether such pleasure should be derived from as painful a process as that which the animals have to undergo for the meat to be acquired. Does the pain and torture that animals undergo during slaughter justify the joy derived from the consumption of such products thereafter? (Kristof, n.p)
The argument by Nicholas Kristof in the New York ...
This is a presentation Dr. Carrie Freeman gave at the first annual Atlanta Veg Fest (www.atlantavegfest.com). The information is largely drawn from sources use in her dissertation's literature review. See works cited at end.
Mercy to Living Beings (Jiva-Kārunya Panchakam) is a treatise addressing two related virtues compassion and ahimsa (non-hurting or non-violence) to nonhuman animals. The poem composed by Narayana Guru in 1914 remains testimony to the Guru's non-dual philosophy and idealistic approach to ahimsa towards all life forms.
This is an excellent presentation for why we should embrace Vegetarianism. This presentation is based on the Vedic scriptures and even the modern science.
When we think about the theory of evolution, one thought creeps into every thoughtful mind that if we have evolved through apes (like beings), this evolution will not stop here. Homo sapiens is the most modern, most developed, strongest, wisest version. Evolution is a continuous process, and, in the future, as per the survival of the fittest and, ironically, even the most powerful, we will evolve into some other, even better species! Well, without a doubt, it sounds immensely positive and hopeful.
Till now, we look at the sequence of evolution as (beings similar to) apes which have evolved into Homo Sapiens and will continue to do so until perfection. Hypothetically we can look at this sequence through exactly the opposite perspective, which leads us from being the most developed Humans to present-day Homo Sapiens through devolution. If this devolution continues, Homo-Sapiens will devolve into (beings similar to) apes. In either case, evolution and devolution are not stagnant or permanent processes. Even if either pinnacle is achieved, it won’t stop, for change is constant in the universe. This thought/idea leads to a cyclic pattern of occurrences, which provides a base for further research.
Modern science has only analysed the previous scenario, whereas it should have been looked at both ways; for the present-day scenario of exploitation of domesticated animals, unethical use of armaments and finances, man’s hunger to attain power and quest to intrude into the workings of nature through experimentations of Artificial Intelligence etc. portray a different, fearful scene in front of our eyes. Also, suppose survival of the fittest is valid due to the increasing human race population and enhanced disparity. In that case, that day does not seem far when the more powerful humans start to massacre the less powerful ones to maintain their beloved planet's population.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to reflect this theory by adding consciousness and then by analysing the same through the glass of time cycle in Jain philosophy. This indicates that what we understand as evolution is actually devolution.
Peace and good vibes
Medhavi
This article from the Economic and Political Weekly, a peer-reviewed academic journal, traces the history and development of medical science in India, ranging from systems of witchcraft to allopathy. The author also compares the Chinese, Greek and Egyptian systems of medicine to Ayurveda and outlines their similarities. He discusses the growth of modern medicine and the dismal state of the public healthcare system in India. The article concludes that the country’s poor healthcare structure can be attributed to its strong feudal culture, which promoted both rational and irrational medical practices.
Running head ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEWANIMAL RIGHTS LITER.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEW
ANIMAL RIGHTS LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Introduction
Animal rights movement advocates for animal’s wellbeing, free from pain, cruelty and abuse as they are living beings and they have the right to live in liberty. Abuse of animals has become a major issue worldwide therefore becoming a problem that can be solved only through obtaining a clear comprehension of what the rights entail. Animal rights as a movement challenges the society’s old view that all animals only exist for human use like in experimentation and agriculture (Sunstein 388). Despite the comprehension of what animal rights entail, it is crucial for individuals to understand the potential causes of animal abuse. While those who display these practices of viciousness and disregard towards animals must be dissected and, if vital, liberatingly analyzed, they should likewise be considered responsible for their activities, which is done by specific laws and controls that endeavor to forestall animal cruelty. This way, the harmful effects of animal abuse is lessened and stopped.
Many individuals trust that animals do not have rights, and that the general populations who support animal rights are liberals who need to discover different channels for their persuasions while others feel it is our ethical commitment to nurture animals as they cannot act or talk for themselves. Protecting animals is, imperative for some reasons, including the help they provide for plant ecosystems, the emotional and psychological bolster they can offer to people, and the knowledge picked up from the sociological studies of them and therefore they have the right to experience their lives free from exploitation and misery. We as human beings however do take speciesism to extremes, making new species through farming and domestication, invading most climates and environments, and utilizing our intelligence to expand or sort term gains at the detriment of long-term sustainability. Animals have rights to live free of pain, abuse and suffering.
Literature Review
The fight against animal brutality, the advocacy of animal rights and the welfare of animals has occurred to some degree over the span of history. It's vital to comprehend that owning animals as property to be eaten or killed is the defining core of our consciousness, and that every human being is routinely indoctrinated into the attitude of control, reductionism, avoidance, elitism, and disconnectedness required by the sustenance practices of our culture (Cochrane 37). This review discusses the existing literature in regard to animal rights. The section contains history, terminology and the pros and cons of the controversies involved in animal rights.
All around the world the “animal research controversy” is capturing community attention by storm. Many are the individuals who emphasize on different con ...
1. The Roots of Vegetarianism
Modern yogis who struggle with the question of whether to eat meat can
look to ancient wisdom for the answer.
By Jennifer Barrett
Ask any number of yogis to describe their diets and you'll likely get responses as
varied as the styles they practice. Many traditionalists see yoga as being
inextricably linked with the meatless path, citing numerous ancient Indian texts to
prove their conviction. Others put less stock in centuries-old warnings like "the
slaughter of animals obstructs the way to heaven" (from the Dharma Sutras) than
in what their bodies have to say. If eating flesh begets health and energy, they
argue, it must be the right choice for them--and their yoga.
Today's range of dietary habits might seem like a recent development, but delve
back into the historical record and you'll find a long tradition of ethical wrangling
with respect to animals. Indeed, the different stances yogis now take on
vegetarianism reflect just the latest turn in a debate that started thousands of
years ago.
The Past-Life Argument
The history of vegetarianism in India began in the Vedic period, an era that
dawned sometime between 4000 and 1500 b.c.e., depending on whom you ask.
Four sacred texts known as the Vedas were the bedrock of early Hindu spiritual
thought. Among those texts' hymns and songs that described with reverence the
wondrous power of the natural world, we find a nascent idea that sets the stage
for vegetarianism in later centuries. "The concept of the transmigration of souls...
first dimly appears in the Rig Veda," explains Colin Spencer in Vegetarianism: A
History (Four Walls, Eight Windows, 2002). "In the totemistic culture of the pre-
Indus civilization, there was already a sense of oneness with creation." A fervent
belief in this idea, he contends, would give rise to vegetarianism later on.
In subsequent ancient texts, including the Upanishads, the idea of rebirth
emerged as a central point. In these writings, according to Kerry Walters and
Lisa Portmess, editors of Religious Vegetarianism (State University of New York
Press, 2001), "gods take animal form, human beings have had past animal lives,
[and] animals have had past human lives." All creatures harbored the Divine, so
that rather than being fixed in time, life was fluid. (A cow alone, notes Spencer,
held 330 million gods and goddesses. To kill one set you back 86 transmigrations
of the soul.) Again, the idea that the meat on a dinner plate once lived in a
different--and possibly human--form made it all the less palatable.
Dietary guidelines became explicit centuries later in the Laws of Manu, written
between 200 b.c.e. and 100 c.e., say Walters and Portmess. In this text, we
2. discover that the sage Manu doesn't find fault just with those who eat meat. "He
who permits the slaughter of an animal," he wrote, "he who cuts it up, he who
kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he
who eats it, must all be considered as the slayers of the animal."
The Bhagavad Gita, arguably the most influential text of the Hindu tradition
(written sometime between the fourth and first centuries b.c.e.), added to the
vegetarian argument with its practical dietary guidelines. It specifies that sattvic
foods (milk, butter, fruit, vegetables, and grains) "promote vitality, health,
pleasure, strength, and long life." Bitter, salty, and sour rajasic foods (including
meat, fish, and alcohol) "cause pain, disease, and discomfort." At the bottom
rung lies the tamasic category: "stale, overcooked, contaminated" and otherwise
rotten or impure foods. These explanations have endured, becoming the
guidelines by which many modern yogis eat.
Spiritual Contradiction
The case for vegetarianism mounted as centuries passed, while another
practice--animal sacrifice--persisted alongside it. The same Vedas that extolled
the virtues of the natural world also emphasized the need for animal sacrifice to
the gods. The uneasy coexistence between India's emerging inclination toward
vegetarianism and its history of animal sacrifice continued over hundreds of
years, says Edwin Bryant, professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University.
Oftentimes the conflict played out in the pages of the same text.
The sage Manu, for instance, condemned recreational meat eating, stating,
"There is no greater sinner than that man who...seeks to increase the bulk of his
own flesh by the flesh of other beings." But orthodox followers of Vedic culture--
including Manu--were "forced to allow the performance of animal sacrifice,"
Bryant notes. Ultimately, the discomfort that many in ancient India felt about
animal sacrifice helped fuel the demise of the practice.
Some orthodox traditionalists, for instance, felt uncomfortable challenging the
ancient texts on the issue out of respect for what they believed were the writings'
divine origins. However, they did condemn everyday meat eating, adding a
number of conditions to animal sacrifice so that "the practice accrued ghastly
karmic results that far outweighed any benefits gained," explains Professor
Bryant in A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion and Ethics, edited by
Kimberly Patton and Paul Waldau (to be published in 2004).
Others simply deemed the ancient texts outdated, and went on to form groups
such as the Jainas and the Buddhists. No longer bound by Vedic authority,
Bryant says, they "could scorn the whole sacrificial culture and preach an
unencumbered ahimsa," or doctrine of nonviolence. This concept of ahimsa,
championed by Mahavira in the sixth century, has emerged at the core of the
vegetarian argument in modern times.
3. Some later Indian sages strengthened the case for vegetarianism. Swami
Vivekananda, writing a hundred years ago, pointed out the communality we have
with other animals: "The amoeba and I are the same. The difference is only one
of degree; and from the standpoint of the highest life, all differences vanish."
Swami Prabhupada, scholar and founder of the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness, offered a more stark pronouncement: "If you want to eat
animals, then [God] will give you... the body of a tiger in your next life so that you
can eat flesh very freely."
In most cultures today, the rights of animals have at least prevailed over the ritual
of sacrifice, if not meat eating. Scores of yogis live and eat with the
understanding, as expressed by B.K.S. Iyengar, that a vegetarian diet is "a
necessity" to the practice of yoga. But other, equally dedicated yogis find flesh a
necessary fuel, without which their practice suffers. Those yoga enthusiasts still
on the fence when it comes to the meat question should take heart, however. It
seems that a thoughtful, deliberate, and at times even challenging consideration
of vegetarianism is very much in the spirit of the Indian spiritual tradition.
Contributing Editor Jennifer Barrett is editor of The Herb Quarterly. She
lives in Connecticut.