This document discusses the ethics of eating meat from various perspectives. It examines arguments from animal rights activists who oppose eating meat due to the cruelty involved in slaughtering animals. It also considers perspectives from religions like Hinduism and Buddhism that promote vegetarianism due to principles of non-violence and compassion. Environmental concerns about the resources required to rear animals for food are addressed. While there are valid viewpoints on both sides, the document concludes there is no definitive answer on the ethics of eating meat.

1. 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

2. 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 Times
seeks to place this whole argument into perspective. Kristof’s
article, The Unhealthy Meat Market, begins by alluding to the
mind-boggling statistics that are recorded in America's largest
meat Factory, Tysons. According to the editorial, Tysons, the
major meat supplier in the entire nation slaughters upwards of
100,000 heads of cattle and up to 46 million chickens to meet
the demand. The first question posed therefrom is whether such
actions work to advance the cause of meat eating in the U.S
(Kristof, n.p). The answer to that question is simple, ideally,
even if the company failed to meet its meat-targets, Americans
would seek an alternative source. For this reason, the problem
or the grund norm in the meat-eating campaign is not the
company that slaughters the animals but the people who

3. consume the said meat. Numerous ethical concerns arise in the
face of such practices as the slaughtering and consumption of
meat. Ideally, the animal rights activists argue that most
animals, if not all are treated with contempt and without the
underlying nation that pain and torture are universal aspects that
go beyond the human race (Santina 30-35)
The ethical considerations of consuming meat do not stem
only from the act of slaughtering the animals but also from the
manner in which those animals are developed and nurtured.
According to Kristof (n.p), the American meat factory has been
at the forefront of leading the onslaught against any ounce of
ethical considerations on meat consumption. Research has
proven that the price of chicken meat has drastically reduced by
more than 80% from the 1930s. The main reason for this drastic
reduction is the fact that research and refined scientific
techniques have made it possible to rear the chicken at a much
lower cost and at an accelerated rate.
Most chickens reared for the American meat industry are bred to
suffer; they are offered no respite, in fact, research has
established that most chickens reared in such a manner are
meant to develop large breasts by the time they hit their adult
stage. Such large breasts cause them to topple over due to the
added weight, a ground that could be labeled unethical and
unconscionable from an animal rights activist's perspective
(Kristof, n.p). The animal’s suffering does not end with the
breeding but continues even to the slaughterhouse where the
meat companies do not feel the obligation to ensure that such
animals are treated humanely and in a manner that guarantees of
their safety.
The ethics of eating meat are not limited to the act of
slaughtering the animals. Most vegetarians argue that their acts
of refraining from meat eating are motivated by the inherent
need to care for the environment. The underlying argument that
has been passed by a majority of such vegetarians is that every
person living in the world today has the ethical duty to ensure
the sustenance of the environment and to carry themselves in a

4. manner that ensures such sustainability (Blackwell and Van de
Velde 4)
Animals bred for meat tend to consume a large amount of
vegetation, at least according to the vegetarian argument. In this
regard, actions of advocating for lesser meat consumption
would ensure that such environmental depletion is placed at the
bare minimum. There have been various statistics that seek to
prove and or support this argument. Ideally, the fact of the
matter is that one sixth of an acre of land is enough to feed a
vegetarian for an entire year. On the flip side, around three
acres would be required to produced enough feed to enable the
average meat eater get his share of the meat at the end of the
year (Kristof, n.p).
The vegetarian moral and ethical argument is founded on
the notion and fact that killing is wrong and unwarranted.
Ideally, most vegetarians, while arguing for the cause of
environmental preservation will pass the argument that it is
inherently barbaric for an individual to advance the cause of
meat eating and slaughtering of animals. The barbaric nature of
this act, at least according to the animal rights activists, and the
vegetarians are that the entire process is bloody, unwarranted,
and particularly brutal (Kristof, n.p).
Most of the proponents of this position argue that the
moral and ethical obligation underlying the taking of an action
of such magnitude is the need for the subject of such cruel
actions to be fully aware of the inherent dangers. Drawing from
this argument, the animals in question do not have the power of
reasoning granted to man. For this reason, they cannot
comprehend the motivation behind their acts of being
slaughtered (Nobis 2). This does not, however, mean that the
animals do not have the ability of intuition. Most of these
animals can sense danger and they can sense when they are
about to be killed and this should be the main ground for
fighting against the slaughtering of animals in any manner.
There have been various rebuttals to this argument as
posited by vegetarians. They have advanced the notion that even

5. the vegetarian lifestyle involves some aspect if killing or even
causing death to the animals. At least according to the position
furthered by these notions, plants are living organisms and their
consumption, therefore, entails the killing of an living
organism. In addition, the preparation of a ground for the
planting of these plants causes the death of various living
organisms (Nobis 3-7). The motivation behind this argument is
to place forth the assertion that killing of animals or causing
their death is an action that is inevitable by all circumstances.
Despite the ethical notions thrown around by the animal
rights activists, there also exist religious undertones against the
practice of meat consumption. Most of the religions that place a
keen emphasis on the idea of purity and piety like Buddhism
place enough emphasis on a pure diet. In most cases, the idea of
a pure diet is that devoid of any components of meat or meat
products (Santina 67-75).
The general notion of Hinduism and the truisms that
support the crux of the religion is that vegetarianism is a virtue.
Hinduism, as a lifestyle, supports the notion of vegetarianism
for three basic reasons; one is the inherent principle of non-
violence. Acts of meat eating are preceded by various actions,
which could be labeled as inherently violent (Abhedananda 3).
Violence and cruelty to animals is thus expressly
prohibited and forbidden in the Hindu teachings. Secondly, the
Hindu offering to the Deity should be “pure” food. Pure in this
sense would be indicative of a vegetarian diet. Thirdly, there is
also the motivation driven from the spiritual teachings that a
vegetarian diet is healthy and good for the soul, a meat diet, on
the other hand has been found to be dangerous to the mind and
it hinders spiritual development (Santina 32-34). Various other
religious inclinations work to guide the faithful on various
dietary guidelines, especially with regard to the notion of
consuming meat. The Muslims have developed their own code
by establishing the halal policy. This policy seeks to guide the
faithful on various type of food and meat that are allowed under
their religion.

6. The ethics of eating meat and the religious undertones that
follow the principles that piety and observance of the laws and
spiritual guidance should entail a strict observance of the rules.
According to the Buddhist teachings, the vow of compassion is
one of the central aspects (Santina 65-68). Compassion, in this
sense, could be construed in various forms, the act of pouring or
causing innocent blood to be poured would be an indicator as to
the lack of compassion. It, therefore, is understood that there is
a need to demonstrate compassion by ensuring that at all times;
one respects the life of every living individual.
Meat contains blood, according to numerous religions;
blood is usually the carrier of life within any living animal,
from the human being to the minutest of organisms. Essentially,
this means that any individual that chooses to consume the meat
of an animal also consumes its life. Such a practice would not
be allowed in most religions, and it would be labeled as being
outright immoral and lacking in piety and purity (Kristof n.p).
Most of these ethical considerations and beliefs are
rebuttable. There is the argument of the purpose of God creating
the world with animals. However, that argument presents a
warped opinion seeing that there exist divergent opinions on the
aspect of religion and the beginning of the world.
The religious underpinning, in the ethical motivations or
otherwise, are not limited to the mainstream religions. A
religion in this case should be taken as a philosophical abstract
notion that motivates a certain belief. In this regard, the
motivation advanced by Descartes and the legacy of Newton in
their pseudo-religious theory of Modern Dualism could be roped
in to explain the ethics of meat eating (Descartes 281-283).
Newton and Descartes adopted a radical viewpoint that
sought to place much emphasis on the ideal human motivations.
A keen look at the life of a human being at face value would
reveal that, on the innermost, we are two distinct entities. The
act of living is one and the actions done because of that living
are another, dictated by the environment in which each person
finds himself. According to these two theorists, the idea of life

7. and the events that follow life is merely accidental. In this
regard, the two advance a notion that mainstream religion
abdicates the role of explaining the course of life causing
modern relativism, physics, to take its place. As a result, human
beings have become convinced that the universe is soulless,
relying on a mechanical interpolation with no manifestations of
divine tapestry (Arda 202-205). As such, death being
unexplained, there would be no need to kill an animal, thus,
making the consumption of meat be both against the natural
order of the relative theory and immoral.
Conclusion
There can never be a definitive conclusion on the aspect of
meat-eating and the ethical motivations that follow it. Each
camp seeks to advance their own views, and it should be stated
that such arguments represent an arguable basis. The
vegetarians argue that consumption of meat causes immense
damage to the environment and because of the attendant effects
on the body and health in general. Animal rights activists, on
the other hand, argue that killing of animals is immoral and
lacking in conscience and reason. They argue that there are
other ethical and acceptable ways of consuming animal products
like through the consumption of milk and eggs. The theory of
Modern Dualism espoused by Descartes seeks to place emphasis
on the fact that just because something is not expressly
prohibited, it does not make it altogether legal or ethical.
Works Cited
Abhedananda, Swami. Why a Hindu is a Vegetarian. New York:
Vedanta Society, 1898.
Arda, Emre. "Descartes Account of Feeling of Pain in Animals."
(2013): 201-210.
Blackwell, Georgia and Carla Van de Velde. "European
Vegetarian." Journal of the European Vegetarian Union 2
(2009): 2-16.
Descartes, René. "Animals are Machines." Environmental
Ethics. Ed. J. Armstrong. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. 281-
285.

8. Kristof, Nicholas. "The Unhealthy Meat Market." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Dec.
2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/opinion/kristof-
the-unhealthy-meat-market.html>.
Lusk, Jayson L. and Bailey Norwood. "Some Economic Benefits
and Costs of Vegetarianism." Agricultural and Resource
Economics Review 38.2 (2009): 109–124.
Maharaj, Sachin. "The Ethics of Eating Meat." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/opinion/the-ethics-of-
eating-meat.html?_r=0>.
Nobis, Nathan. "Reasonable Humans and Animals:." Between
the Species August 2008: 1-13.
Santina, Peter. Fundamentals of Buddhism. NJ: Buddha Dharma
Education Association, 2013.