Argumentative Essay: Eating Meat

Argumentative Essay: Eating Meat

Outline

Paragraph 1

Introduction

Hook: The values and principles involved in eating meat have led to a heated debate brought forward by vegetarians. Supportive and opposing arguments against eating meat are therefore diverse on various ethical, moral, and religious levels.

Connecting Information: This essay will utilize arguments against eating meat to ascertain that supportive viewpoints are also valid.

Thesis:Opposing and proposing arguments acquired from acknowledged and reliable researchers, medical experts, and journal writers will be utilized. They will be analyzed to affirm that eating meat can be both beneficial and harmful. Thus, people should be awarded an opportunity to make modest decisions to either eat or avoid meat products.

Body

Paragraph 2

Support 1: Eating meat involves infringement of animal rights. Churchill asserts acquisition of animal meat involves several procedures. First, the animal has to be captured. This attributes to animal torture and abuse. Consequently, they are killed. Thus, eating meat should be banned.

Paragraph 3

Support 2: Eating meat can lead to medical complications. Health complications arising from meat products can be more dangerous than cancer. For example, they can lead to obesity, cause heart attacks, and death. Therefore, vegetarianism should be adopted.

Paragraph 4

Support 3: Eating meat involves use of more resources. Resources, such as land and minerals are utilized in raring animals. Thus, advocating for vegetarianism can protect and conserve natural and artificial resources.

Paragraph 5

Support 4: Eating meat is responsible for depletion and destruction of natural resources. For example, rain forests are destroyed to allocate land for grazing. This attributes to deforestation. Consequently, levels of pollution with regard to air and water resources increase from industrial activities in processing meat products. Thus, vegetarianism can preserve resources, reduce pollution, and conserve environments.

Paragraph 6

Support 5: Depletion and destruction of environments can lead to global hunger. This is because domestic, commercial, and agricultural activities are adversely affected. They reduce foodstuffs produced to feed global populations. More so, pollution and reduction of water resources can affect agricultural activities vital in producing food supplements.

Paragraph 7

Counterargument

Comparing human being versus animal freedoms and rights is impractical. Thus, eating animal meat should not translate to abuse or neglect but an act to balance the ecosystems, leading to growth and development. Advocating for vegetarianism on religious themes should not restrict and constrain believers and pagans as it infringes human and constitutional rights. Vegetarians should not intimidate people eating meat on health levels citing diseases, such as cancer, heart attacks, and obesity. It is ethical to acknowledge other people’s modest opinions and ideas. Thus, vegetarians should respect and agree that eating meat is a personal opinion based on individual’s preference without intimidating proponents.

Paragraph 8

Refutation:

Eating meat should not be allowed. The support points discussed between paragraph two and six provide valid reasons encouraging people to be vegetarians. Thus, this essay refutes the counterarguments motivating people to abuse, torture, and kill animals in order to acquire meat products. It also refutes animal rights cannot be compared in equal measures as human rights asserting people and animals ought to enjoy similar and equal freedoms, as they reside on the same planet. More so, the religious values ought to be applied to discourage the act of eating meat by implementing animal rights, as they are God’s creations. Thus, religious ethics and values should be applied to encourage vegetarianism rather than killing of animals to acquire meat.

Recommendations:

Paragraph 9

People should be advised against eating meat. As human beings, we should understand vegetarianism could decrease world hunger. It can also protect and preserve the environments against deforestation.

Paragraph 10

Problems leading to heart attacks, failure, and other health complications can also be prevented and/or reduced. This can increase life spans among human beings. Allowing people to make wise, well informed, and ethical decisions is a modest way to uphold human rights and decisions. Human beings should therefore be allowed enjoy their rights to make personal decisions, believe, and live by them

Paragraph 11

Conclusion

People should not be intimidated, threatened or bullied on religious, healthcare, and environmental levels with regards to their dietary options. They should be allowed to make individual dietary decisions based on healthy, morally upright, and ethical values. It is therefore acceptable to acknowledge persons proposed and opposed to eating meat have valid reasons.

Argumentative Essay: Eating Meat

Introduction

Several publications have contributed towards the heated debate discussing the values and principles of eating meat. Arguments against eating meat have been published asserting vegetarianism is ethical on religious, medical, and moral levels. Conversely, arguments supporting human beings eating meat are based on meta-ethical principles and values. They attempt to affirm that, people can eat meat without infringing ethical, religious, medical, and moral freedoms as well as values. However, these arguments have not concluded if either eating meat or being vegetarian is acceptable. They continue to provide conflicting arguments as they strive to support or oppose the act of eating meat. This essay will therefore focus on opposing and proposing arguments. It will discuss the arguments and provide a conclusion on the matter. The discussion will be based on arguments acquired from acknowledged and reliable researchers, medical experts, and journal writers involved in this debate.

Discussion

According to Churchill, eating meat is unethical on moral, religious, and health matters. He asserts eating meat involves killing various species to acquire the product. Killing animals is unethical as the species ought to enjoy various freedoms and rights on earth as human beings. For example, they should not be tortured, abused, or killed. This is because human beings living on earth also enjoy these rights. However, several people continue to kill animals such as cows or chicken. This infringes the species’ freedom and rights to reside on earth. More so, the killings are unethical on religions levels. For example, Indians are globally acknowledged for avoiding eating cow meat due to religious restrictions against beef. Consequently, Muslims are not allowed to eat pork. Both religious groups therefore believe eating beef or/and pork is unholy and harmful. Thus, Churchill applies such principles to assert eating meat can also lead to medical complications and cause deaths (Churchill, 2007).

He affirms death rates associated with meat eating are actually higher in comparison to fatal rates from alcohol, drug, and cigarettes. Sizer and Whitney (2007) further support this argument. The two authors assert that, meat is more dangerous than suffering from cancer. The authors affirm that, vegetarianism can prevent cancer. It can also protect people from suffering heart and circulatory issues. However, eating meat leads to obesity, heart attacks, cancer, and death. Thus, they seek to argue and affirm eating meat can lead to medical complications. Consequently, it can shorten life spans among human beings (Peele & Grant, 2013).

Churchill also asserts eating meat involves use of more resources to produce the product. For example, the world requires more cows, chickens, goats, fishes, and other animals to acquire various forms of meat. Feeding these animals require food and medical resources. More so, they occupy a large portion of land. The land resource can however be utilized to grow medically safe and healthy grains. However, people focus on diverting such resources to acquire materials necessary in feeding their hunger pangs. Thus, human beings prefer eating meat as this resource can feed more people. They fail to acknowledge that, spending time in growing safe and healthy food materials such as grains can also feed more people. They also fail to accept they risk environmental resources in acquiring meat harmful to their health conditions (Cresswell, 2009).

Robbins has also supported the opposing argument. Robbins (1998) asserts that, eating meat is responsible for depleting natural resources. For example, human beings acquire meat by raring cows. However, they need to allocate grazing land. According to Kohlenberg and Tsai, human beings destroy rain forests to identify the grazing lands. This has led to destruction of resources coupled with deforestation. Resources such as water and energy are therefore destroyed and wasted in producing meat. Ultimately, the environment is destroyed and various resources including minerals depleted. This can also be coupled with increased water and air pollution due to industrial activities undertaken to produce, process, and supply meat to consumers (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 2007).

Consequently, people risk suffering from hunger due to depleted and destroyed environments. Environments provide people with natural and artificial resources to produce and supply food. Rain forests provide water for domestic, commercial, and agricultural activities. However, pollution of water resources is being experienced. This is coupled with reduction of water resources due to deforestation. Such adverse activities aligned towards acquisition of meat are therefore inhibiting food production. This is further leading to increase in global hunger. These opposing arguments therefore assert eating meat is unethical on religious, environmental, scientific, moral, and healthcare levels (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 2007).

Counterargument

Comparing human being versus animal freedoms and rights is impractical. Thus, eating meat should not translate to animal abuse or neglect. It should be an act to balance the ecosystems leading to growth and development. More so, advocating for vegetarianism on religious themes restricts and constrains freedoms and rights enjoyed by both believers and pagans. This is because it translates to infringement of human and constitutional rights. Thus, people should be allowed to make individual decisions to eat meat. Vegetarians citing eating meat causes health complications should consider that, they are intimidating their proponent’s freedoms and rights. Vegetarians should consider they risk suffering from cancer, heart attacks and obesity while enjoying their human and constitutional freedoms and rights. It is ethical to acknowledge other people’s modest opinions and ideas as well as human and constitutional freedoms and rights. Thus, eating meat should therefore be respected as a personal opinion based on individual’s preference, freedoms, and rights.

Refutation

The counter argument presented above seeks to encourage and motivate people to eat meat. However, this also translates to various unethical, unsafe, and unhealthy practices undertaken by human beings to acquire the meat products. Thus, the act of eating meat should neither be allowed nor encouraged. More so, the support ideas discussed above should be applied to encourage vegetarianism. Various authors including Churchill have asserted that eating meat can lead to environmental degradation attributing to depletion of resources crucial in sustaining animal and human lives. Human and constitutional freedoms and rights cannot be enjoyed by either starving or ill people. Global populations should therefore adopt vegetarianism to sustain healthy diets decreasing heart attacks, obesity, and cancer among other diseases. Consequently, animal rights can be respected and sustained in equal measures as human rights as the two species are God’s creations residing on the same planet.

Recommendations

It is evident eating meat therefore causes more deaths than alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. More sp, it depletes our natural resources thus increasing hunger in the world. People should therefore be advised against eating meat. As human beings, we should understand that vegetarianism could decrease world hunger. It can also protect and preserve the environments against deforestation. This can encourage food production consequently reducing world hunger. Processing meat products lead to environmental pollution. This is due to industrial activities attributing to contamination of air, water and other resources. Thus, vegetarianism can protect artificial and natural environmental resources. This enhances ethical values on the need to observe and uphold principles aligned to environmental protection and conservation. It also enhances personal values and guidelines to ensure individual’s health is protected. Due to vegetarianism, obesity and heart attacks can be prevented.

Problems leading to heart attacks, failure and other health complications can also be prevented and/or reduced. This can increase life spans among human beings. Allowing people to make wise, well informed, and ethical decisions is a modest way to uphold human rights and decisions. Human beings should therefore be allowed enjoy their rights to make personal decisions, believe, and live by them. However, raising awareness on various issues assists people to make wiser and ethical decisions. Thus, conducting awareness campaigns to ensure people understand the dangers of eating meat can encourage vegetarianism. Conducting the awareness campaigns ought to ensure people understand the dangers of eating meat. Without coercing, intimidating, or threatening people on religious, ethical, and environmental levels human beings can opt for vegetarianism.

Conclusion

Eating meat can be both beneficial and harmful as some people avoid various forms of meat they deem harmful or unholy. However, people should be allowed to make modest personal choices. They should not be intimidated, threatened or bullied on religious, healthcare, and environmental levels. However, they can be educated on safe, ethical, healthy, and acceptable measures to acquire meat. Consequently, they can avoid eating harmful meat products as food supplements. For example, they can eat meat while supplementing with grains and vegetables. This can conserve environments, resources, and improve people’s healthcare conditions.

References

Boyle, E. (2012). High steaks: Why and How to Eat less Meat, Gabriola Island, and B.C: New Society Publishers.

Churchill, P. (2007). Eternal Breath: A Biography of Leonard Orr: Founder of Rebirthing Network, Victoria, BC: Trafford.

Cresswell, P. (2009). Healthy Life Vegetarian Hand and Cook Book, Lulu.com.

Kohlenberg, R., & Tsai, M. (2007). Functional Analytic Psychotherapy: Creating Intense and Curative Therapeutic Relationships, New York: Springer.

Peele, S., & Grant, M. (2013). Alcohol and Pleasure: A Health Perspective, New York: Routledge.

Robbins, J. (1998). Diet for a New America, Tiburon, Calif: H.J. Kramer/New World Library.

Sizer, F., & Whitney, E. (2007). Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies, Stamford: Cengage Learning.