There are multiple reasons stated in Rachel's article on why it is wrong to eat meat. The main point in her article is that to eat meat is to support a cruel system of meat production. Rachels argues against Kant's belief that animals do not have a moral standing and are merely a means to an end, which is man. Rachels believes that
Despite the unhealthy, some addicts will careless and continue to do what they want; comparably, some people still go to McDonald’s. That is why, “forbidding young people things they like or think they might enjoy only makes them want those thing all the more” (884). Vidal’s statement is exact to all ages. Besides, “every man, however, has the power (and should have the legal right) to kill himself if he chooses” (884). Vidal mocks the power of choice; it can execute a person in a simple and ordinary way.
Animals are meant to be eaten not mistreated, just eaten. People have overblown this whole animal injustice thing. We are supposed to eat meant to be healthy. That is just how it was meant to be. We humans eat animals for fuel.
When you tackle her she says Mr Salinky is confused so he won’t know what he’s eating. Firstly I would totally feel that this is a discriminatory act. My reason for my opinion on this is due to the neglectful actions when taking into account his cultural believes and wishes. I feel this act from another colleague actually borders on institutional abuse. Especially since I’d made attempts to challenge her on her reasons for giving him the meat.
Although Schwartz attempts to provoke a strong message, he neglects the use of logical support and credibility throughout the article. Schwartz discusses the severe discrimination and taunting overweight people deal with in society, followed by the dangers of dieting. Schwartz’s solution to these dangers, quit dieting. Dieting, for Schwartz, is described as cannibalism, starving until one’s body is surviving primarily off of its own fat. Living in an obese society would promote self acceptance.
I found Lane’s arguments to be tied closely to Kantism and Utilitarism. Lane’s Kantism way of reflects the Categorical Imperative (1st formulation). Lane contends that we are hypocritical in our way of thinking and acting. We eat animals that are of “lesser” intelligence, where animals of “higher” intelligence are overlooked. I found this way of thinking to be narrow minded and impractical.
Wallace sympathizes that if lobsters can’t control their pain, then humans are unnecessarily boiling and eating them, as a result, putting them through immense suffering that humans wouldn’t want to experience themselves. Wallace, however also compares them to frontal lobotomy patients. These patients experience physical pain but perceive it in a different way. They do not necessarily hate or like pain. They feel neutral about it.
Keenan Reilly Rubbish! 12/1/2012 Is Indifference Corrosive? If you knew that your favorite food was made with a considerable amount of mercury, and that’s what made it so tasty, would you still eat it daily knowing that it was doing harm to your body? Being indifferent, is an alarmingly personal choice, it isn’t a stamp that makes something permanent forever, it is a moment by moment choice that is either being made consciously or unconsciously. Speaking for myself, I would stop eating that food if I knew there was mercury in it, because I care about my body, I know mercury is poisonous, etc, etc, I could go on with a list of reasons as to why I personally would not eat food with mercury in it.
Americans catching so many fish that they are risking destroying fish populations. Foer states, this situation reflects that food is just about taste, but also can tell other ethnicities’ social histories. As people know, fish are one of Americans’ sources of protein, and for Americans, eating any kind, size, or form of fish is a very command; on the other hand, for many other ethnicities and religious traditions like the Zuni people, the Bugis people and Jewish people, eating fish or certain kinds of fish is against their values and norms. Unlike Americans, the Zuni people comprise one of many Southern Indians tribes that have taboo against eating fish fish. They will not eat fish under any circumstances.
How can someone be called fat? Can fat be a good thing rather than a bad, as the media and governments tells us. With David Zinczenko’s controversial article on suing fast foods is wrong to Paul Campos’s argumentative essay criticizing the BMI scale we’ll get professional responses on this controversial topic. Sometimes “fat” can be blamed on fast food. According to “Don’t Blame the Eater”, by David Zinczenko, he argues that suing a fast food place is wrong and should be your responsibility on what he eats.