English 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. Foremost, 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. Thus, 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.

Counterarguments

Paragraph 7

Refutation 1:

Comparing human being versus animal freedoms and rights is impractical. Thus, eating animal meat should not translate to abuse or neglect. It should be an act to balance the ecosystems leading to growth and development.

Paragraph 8

Refutation 2:

Advocating for vegetarianism on religious themes should not restrict and constrain 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.

Paragraph 9

Refutation 3:

Vegetarians asserting eating meat causes health complications should consider that, they can also be caused by other factors. For example, cancer and heart attacks can also affect vegetarians.  More so, vegetarians can be obese for lack of exercise.  

Paragraph 10

Refutation 4:

Eating meat on opposing argument that it leads to depletion of environmental resources is misleading. Allocating land and other environmental resources is necessary to allow new plantations and resources. More so, allocating environmental resources in raring animals allows researchers and scientists to acquire experimental species. Thus, they are able to conduct laboratory experiments and develop treatment procedures crucial in countering diseases and health complications.

Paragraph 11

Refutation 5:

It is ethical to acknowledge other people’s modest opinions and ideas. Thus, vegetarians should respect and agree eating meat is a personal opinion based on individual’s preference.

Paragraph 12

Refutation 6:

Advocating for environmental conservation should also be utilized to encourage animal preservation. Animals ought to breed and multiply to sustain generations. Thus, eating animal meat should not translate to destruction of environments or extinction of animals. Rather, eating animals balances the ecosystem. Thus, people opposed to eating meat should not cite religious and healthcare principles to intimidate proponents.

Paragraph 13

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. More so, they can both maintain their moral and ethical values.

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. This argument is further supported by Sizer and Whitney (2007). 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).

The opposing argument has also been supported by Robbins. 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).

Counterarguments

Eating meat however should not translate to unethical and immoral values among human beings. Foremost, comparing human beings and animals with regards to freedoms and rights is impractical. Respecting animals to avoid abuse, neglect, and torture of the species is necessary. However, the act of eating animals does not translate to abuse or neglect. More so, some species rely on other animals to survive. For example, lions rely on gazelle and antelope meat to survive. Thus, eating animals should not constitute to infringement of animal rights and freedoms.  However, the act of killing the animal to acquire meat should not constitute to abuse or torture. Thus, human beings desiring to eat animals should ensure they are sensitive (Sizer & Whitney, 2007).

The world comprises of several religious groups. Christians do not think any form of meat is harmful or unholy. Thus, advocating for vegetarianism on religious themes can restrict and constrain believers and pagans. This can also translate to infringement of human and constitutional rights. People ought to enjoy the right to eat what they desire and associate with religious groups without being forced, intimidated or threatened. Thus, people against eating meat should acknowledge global populations have the right to consume food materials regarded as safe and legal. They should not base their arguments on either wrong or right principles as the world comprises of diverse philosophies guiding people’s ways of lives (Boyle, 2012).

Cancer and other forms of healthcare complications associated with eating meat can also be caused by other factors. Causes of cancer and heart attacks are therefore diverse. More so, obesity can also be caused by excessive eating of other foodstuffs without meat. Thus, people against eating of meat should acknowledge such facts. More importantly, they should acknowledge scientists and researchers use animals to establish treatment procedures to cater for some diseases. Currently, researchers are seeking to identify treatment procedures for HIV/AIDS and cancer. More so, they continue to conduct various laboratory experiments to improve treatment procedures fighting malaria. These experiments cannot be developed without use of animal species. Thus, asserting animals are depleting and destroying resources is misleading (Boyle, 2012).

Raring of cows, chickens, fish, and other animals is necessary as they are utilized in conducting laboratory experiments to develop procedures. Human beings rely on such procedures to improve qualities of lives and elongate life spans. Thus, allocating land and other environmental resources including water is necessary. This allows researchers and scientists to conduct laboratory experiments and develop treatment procedures. The experiments are mainly conducted among inedible animal species. This however further affirms that, allocating resources in raring inedible animals can also lead to depletion and destruction of environments. Thus, the principles and values among human beings eating meat should not be applied to explain depletion and destruction of environments and resources (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 2007).

It is ethical to acknowledge other people’s modest opinions and ideas. Vegetarians should therefore respect people eating meat. They should agree eating meat is a personal opinion based on individual’s preference. Thus, they should not cite religious and healthcare principles to intimidate people against eating meat. Consequently, they should not apply moral values in advocating for vegetarianism. Instead, they should seek religious, healthcare, environmental, moral, and ethical clarity without being biased (Sizer & Whitney, 2007).

The principle of advocating for environmental conservation should also be utilized to encourage animal preservation. Vegetarians should acknowledge animals breed, multiply, and sustain generations. Thus, eating animal meat should not translate to destruction of environments or extinction of animals. More so, eating animals balances the ecosystem. Animals utilize environmental resources for survival encouraging new plantations to grow. Consequently, animals breed and multiply ensuring human beings are able to rely on animal meat as supplement. Thus, neither are the environments nor animals destroyed or harmed respectively (Cresswell, 2009).

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 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, 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.