Minimal

Meatatarian: A Person Who Has Eaten So Much Meat Their Brain Has Been Reduced To Top Sirloin “Man is the only creature that consumes without producing.  He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits.  Yet he is lord of all the animals.”                                                                                     - George Orwell, Animal Farm There is only one type of Vegetarian, a person who does not consume the flesh of animals. This is not to be confused with Veganism, a person who does not consume the flesh of animals or any animal products (dairy, honey, etc). There are no other forms, sorts or kinds of vegetarians. People that consume fish, or seafood but no other form of meat are not vegetarian, they are simply confused.  People eat meat for many different reasons; tradition, pleasure (“because it tastes good”), and for most, ignorance (never considered otherwise).  There is only one reason to become a vegetarian, and that is morality. Ethically, people should not eat animals because it causes unnecessary suffering. Humans are not carnivores and do not require meat to survive. Humans are omnivores, and can live a normal, healthy life without ever consuming animal flesh.  “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”                                                                                     - The American Dietetic Association  There are several different ways to argue whether it is ok to end the life of an animal in order to further ones hedonistic taste for blood. Most people are quick to argue emotionally, not giving any real thought to anything other than there own desire and comfort. Some people will try to argue on behalf of religion, not allowing any real thought of their own. And a select few may try to debate intelligently, and philosophically. I will address several arguments from each perspective. Arguments based on Emotion Argument 1: It is ok to eat meat because it tastes good. Response 1: If someone (or something) thought people tasted good, it would be ok to eat them, based on this rationality. Argument 2: Humans have always eaten animals. Response 2: Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that is the correct way to do it. Tradition is not a suitable reason to do anything. Humans enslaved one another until the end of the 19th Century. With the ability to adapt and progress, people finally brought an end to slavery. But until that point, humanity had always condoned slavery. Humans have adapted to the environment quite well, producing plenty of alternatives to meat. Many humans have adapted and progressed enough to understand that eating animals is unhealthy, unnecessary and morally wrong. That being said, there are people that still think slavery is acceptable.   Argument 3: Animals eat each other. Response 3: Many animals are carnivores and need to eat meat to survive. It is through conscious thinking that people have determined eating meat is morally unacceptable, because it causes unnecessary suffering. Animals do not have the ability to make a conscious decision about what they eat. “Most Americans live in houses that have central heating and indoor plumbing, drive cars, wear clothes, and write checks. Other animals do not do any of these things. Should we therefore stop living as we live, stop doing what we do, and start imitating them? I know of no critic of animal rights who advocates anything remotely like this. Why, then, place what carnivorous animals eat in a unique category as being the one thing they do that we should imitate?”                                                                                     - Tom Ragen, The Animal Rights Debate Arguments based on Religion  Argument 1: God gave humans dominion over animals. (Genesis 1:26, 9:3) Response 1: Suppose humans were to one-day encounter a far more intelligent and technologically advanced race of aliens with the same belief, that their ‘God’ has given them dominion over all beings in the universe, would it be ok for them to eat humans? Argument 2: Everything in the universe has been put here for human use. Response 2: This is subjective. If animals were able to speak, they could just as easily claim the same thing. Several races of people claim they are the chosen people of ‘God’ and differ on the treatment of animals and many other topics. Furthermore, even if people were the rightful rulers of the universe, it still would not be right to abuse animals, or act immorally. Ironically, our treatment of animals (factory farms, veal crates, experimentation) would seem to relate to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. “To animals, all humans are Nazis.”                                                                                     - Isaac Singer, survivor of Nazi persecution Argument 3:  Animals do not have a soul, so therefor do not have moral rights. Response 3:  Again, subjective. It is impossible to define or prove that anyone (including people) have souls, so therefor this is invalid and irrelevant. People are to believe they have souls based on faith, and based on faith- one can prove just about anything. Arguments based on Ethics  Argument 1: Animals lack the capacity for moral consideration, so therefor have no moral rights. Response 1: If a person were to suffer severe brain damage and no longer be capable of cognitive thought (capacity for moral consideration) would they also be stripped of their moral rights? Or a new born, not yet able to think in terms of morality, would they not yet be eligible for moral rights? Morality is not contingent on intelligence. Argument 2: While becoming a vegetarian may prevent some animals from suffering (death), it is impossible to prevent any and all suffering and death to animals.   Response 2: While this is true, this is in no way a reason not to reduce the suffering (death) to animals as much as possible. If one can prevent unnecessary suffering, it is ones moral responsibility to do so. Again, it is the conscious choice to cause unnecessary suffering that is truly unethical, and wrong.  Argument 3: Eating other living things such as plants brings pain and suffering.  Response 3: While this is debatable, lets give the argument the benefit of the doubt. This would imply vegetarians should stop eating plants, and in turn starve to death. However, while eating plants may cause pain, the pain would not be unnecessary. People need to eat to survive, the same way a carnivore needs to eat meat to survive. Morality does not require or expect anyone to starve to death. As a matter of fact- if for some reason people were unable to produce food alternative to meat, meat would then be back on the menu. It is only unethical and immoral to eat meat when it causes unnecessary suffering. 

Meatatarian: A Person Who Has Eaten So Much Meat Their Brain Has Been Reduced To Top Sirloin

“Man is the only creature that consumes without producing.  He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits.  Yet he is lord of all the animals.”

                                                                                    - George Orwell, Animal Farm



There is only one type of Vegetarian, a person who does not consume the flesh of animals. This is not to be confused with Veganism, a person who does not consume the flesh of animals or any animal products (dairy, honey, etc). There are no other forms, sorts or kinds of vegetarians. People that consume fish, or seafood but no other form of meat are not vegetarian, they are simply confused.

 People eat meat for many different reasons; tradition, pleasure (“because it tastes good”), and for most, ignorance (never considered otherwise).  There is only one reason to become a vegetarian, and that is morality. Ethically, people should not eat animals because it causes unnecessary suffering. Humans are not carnivores and do not require meat to survive. Humans are omnivores, and can live a normal, healthy life without ever consuming animal flesh.

 “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”

                                                                                    - The American Dietetic Association

 There are several different ways to argue whether it is ok to end the life of an animal in order to further ones hedonistic taste for blood. Most people are quick to argue emotionally, not giving any real thought to anything other than there own desire and comfort. Some people will try to argue on behalf of religion, not allowing any real thought of their own. And a select few may try to debate intelligently, and philosophically. I will address several arguments from each perspective.



Arguments based on Emotion

Argument 1:

It is ok to eat meat because it tastes good.

Response 1:

If someone (or something) thought people tasted good, it would be ok to eat them, based on this rationality.



Argument 2:

Humans have always eaten animals.

Response 2:

Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that is the correct way to do it. Tradition is not a suitable reason to do anything. Humans enslaved one another until the end of the 19th Century. With the ability to adapt and progress, people finally brought an end to slavery. But until that point, humanity had always condoned slavery. Humans have adapted to the environment quite well, producing plenty of alternatives to meat. Many humans have adapted and progressed enough to understand that eating animals is unhealthy, unnecessary and morally wrong. That being said, there are people that still think slavery is acceptable.  



Argument 3:

Animals eat each other.

Response 3:

Many animals are carnivores and need to eat meat to survive. It is through conscious thinking that people have determined eating meat is morally unacceptable, because it causes unnecessary suffering. Animals do not have the ability to make a conscious decision about what they eat.

“Most Americans live in houses that have central heating and indoor plumbing, drive cars, wear clothes, and write checks. Other animals do not do any of these things. Should we therefore stop living as we live, stop doing what we do, and start imitating them? I know of no critic of animal rights who advocates anything remotely like this. Why, then, place what carnivorous animals eat in a unique category as being the one thing they do that we should imitate?”

                                                                                    - Tom Ragen, The Animal Rights Debate



Arguments based on Religion 

Argument 1:

God gave humans dominion over animals. (Genesis 1:26, 9:3)

Response 1:

Suppose humans were to one-day encounter a far more intelligent and technologically advanced race of aliens with the same belief, that their ‘God’ has given them dominion over all beings in the universe, would it be ok for them to eat humans?



Argument 2:

Everything in the universe has been put here for human use.

Response 2:

This is subjective. If animals were able to speak, they could just as easily claim the same thing. Several races of people claim they are the chosen people of ‘God’ and differ on the treatment of animals and many other topics. Furthermore, even if people were the rightful rulers of the universe, it still would not be right to abuse animals, or act immorally. Ironically, our treatment of animals (factory farms, veal crates, experimentation) would seem to relate to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.

“To animals, all humans are Nazis.”

                                                                                    - Isaac Singer, survivor of Nazi persecution



Argument 3: 

Animals do not have a soul, so therefor do not have moral rights.

Response 3:

 Again, subjective. It is impossible to define or prove that anyone (including people) have souls, so therefor this is invalid and irrelevant. People are to believe they have souls based on faith, and based on faith- one can prove just about anything.



Arguments based on Ethics 

Argument 1:

Animals lack the capacity for moral consideration, so therefor have no moral rights.

Response 1:

If a person were to suffer severe brain damage and no longer be capable of cognitive thought (capacity for moral consideration) would they also be stripped of their moral rights? Or a new born, not yet able to think in terms of morality, would they not yet be eligible for moral rights? Morality is not contingent on intelligence.



Argument 2:

While becoming a vegetarian may prevent some animals from suffering (death), it is impossible to prevent any and all suffering and death to animals. 

 Response 2:

While this is true, this is in no way a reason not to reduce the suffering (death) to animals as much as possible. If one can prevent unnecessary suffering, it is ones moral responsibility to do so. Again, it is the conscious choice to cause unnecessary suffering that is truly unethical, and wrong.



 Argument 3:

Eating other living things such as plants brings pain and suffering.

 Response 3:

While this is debatable, lets give the argument the benefit of the doubt. This would imply vegetarians should stop eating plants, and in turn starve to death. However, while eating plants may cause pain, the pain would not be unnecessary. People need to eat to survive, the same way a carnivore needs to eat meat to survive. Morality does not require or expect anyone to starve to death. As a matter of fact- if for some reason people were unable to produce food alternative to meat, meat would then be back on the menu. It is only unethical and immoral to eat meat when it causes unnecessary suffering. 

hit counter