At some special cases, such as an accident killing, they are allowed to consume animals in which they didn’t kill deliberately. Buddhism seems to be not the only religion that nourishes the necessity of vegetarianism. Ancient Christians believe that raw vegetables should be the only food that humans consume. Although Christians nowadays are not familiar with vegetarianism, there are still people who believe that vegetarianism should be applied to humans. One example is William Cowherd, who is the founder of Bible Christian Church.
Comparing two non-fiction texts Text A is an informative RSPCA website article, particularly aimed at adults or people interested in animals, such as farmers. The website is informing people about how the RSPCA would like abattoirs to have CCTV installed to be aware of how animals are treated before and during slaughter. The perspective of the author is from somebody who works for the RSPCA so you would assume they are keen to support the welfare of animals. Text B is a leaflet which uses persuasive language, encouraging people to stop eating meat. The audience for this leaflet would mainly be meat-eaters, as vegetarians would not need encouragement to be something they are already.
In David Lane’s, "A Neuro-evolutionary Argument for Vegetarianism,” he outlines two main argument against the killing and consumption of animals. Lane supports his argument through the materialistic perspective. Unlike other vegetarian arguments that rely on a spiritual premise for its support – I.E Animals have souls, the notion of the materialistic perspective is that only the physical realm exists in issues such as vegetarianism. Lane's first argument is that every animal with a functioning central nervous system has the capacity to feel pain and suffering. Lane bases this claim on factual evidence, the science of neuroanatomy, which indicates how pain is produced.
We will not make them suffer long painful deaths. Ethical treatment of animals can be solved using the deontology theory. “Deontology focuses on what we are obligated to do as rational moral agents. It is particularly important to see that the deontologist does not say that actions do not have consequences; rather, the deontologist insists that actions should not be evaluated on the basis of the action's consequences (Mossler, 2010).“ One example of the deontology theory in action is your livestock is being attacked by a wild animal. In efforts to protect your livestock you shoot and kill the wild animal.
They advocated dealing with the epidemic by instituting a combination of animal control ordinances and educational efforts, as well as more accurate reporting of dog attacks. They opposed breed bans on the ground that any dog could be a bad dog, that it is too difficult to identify breeds like pit bulls, and that people with bad intentions will turn harmless breeds into killer breeds to stay one step ahead of the law. Other organizations that exist specifically to oppose breed bans and, in particular, pit bull bans, also promote stiff criminal laws against people who abuse dogs or habitually violate the animal control laws. See, for example, the "Three Strikes You're Out" proposal by Animal Farm Foundation, Inc., an organization devoted "to restore the image of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and to protect him from discrimination and cruelty" (the quote is from their home
Reading Response In the written work, Calling all Carnivores by Ariel Kaminer, discussed the topic of if was ethical to eat meat. Ariel Kaminer wanted to start the conversation and create a contest to see who could tell people why it is ethical to eat meat. Said by Ariel Kaminer and Jay Bost, the winner of Ariel Kaminer’s contest, eating meat is ethical because since the beginning of human existence we have been eating meat to survive. The choice to eat meat has been ingrained into our habitual eating patterns. Creating none meat products would have environment ramifications.
Therefore, banning pit bulls would make no progress. We have to see that pit bulls are not inherently dangerous; they have a connotation of being dangerous so more people who want dangerous dogs train them to be this way. Experts agree that with proper training pit bulls are just as safe as any other dog breed. Thirdly, just because pit bulls
I certainly do believe that cows should be treated for real food and not focused on overproducing and fixated on money. I wish I can say that us human’s should have full responsibility on our food due to the fact that our so called government is controlling our food. The FDA is letting meat pass that shouldn’t be passed. I would suggest that humans have the right to know every little detail of what we are consuming. It’s absolutely not right for someone higher than us to control our food.
Our culture and our obsession for the American meal to include meat and dairy products hasus killing ourselves. The factory farming industry is nothing more than a racket to obtain money by brainwashing the public to believe that it is healthy and not exposing the truth. The promotion of meat and dairy has us believing that we need them to be healthy, but as studies have shown it would appear to be just the
If the government considers meats being significant in diets, this could cause arguments between citizens and the government. Also vegetarians could be included in this category. While a government mandatory diet is the best option to lowering the obesity rate, people are capable of making their own decisions, especially when it comes to food. If the government is allowed to put a person on a diet, it will not allow people to make decisions for themselves. The ultimate goal is to decrease the rate of obesity.