In this paper, I consider an argument for the conclusion that it is morally permissible to eat humanely farmed meat. This argument is based on Michael Pollan’s argument in the article, “An Animal’s Place”. I will offer an objection to Pollan’s premise that domestication is a natural product of evolution. Then, I will consider a reply to my objection. As a result of this analysis, I hold that Pollan’s argument and thus the proposed argument for the conclusion that it is morally permissible to eat humanely farmed meat will be justified.
Argument for Eating Animals
Here, I present an argument for the conclusion that it is morally permissible to eat humanely farmed meat.
Michael Pollan presents the argument that “sometimes eating animals is …show more content…
Polyface is a “good farm” owned by Joel Salatin. The farm has 550 acres of grassland where six different food animals are raised in an ecologically and humane way. Pollan argues that each species can fully express its physiological distinctiveness, meaning chickens live like chickens; cows, like cow; and etc., (5). The process is simple, the animals have a rotation, with each either grazing or fertilizing the pasture, which allows them to be happy. In the same way we recognize animal suffering, we see animal happiness (5). For animals, happiness is consistent with the opportunity to express its character and nature. The animals on Polyface Farm have the opportunity to express their natural characteristics by having the freedom to graze the pasture and live a humane life. This life for domesticated animals cannot be achieved without humans (5). The domestication process is not a form of enslavement, but rather a natural evolutionary development (6). Domestication is a natural product of evolution and without it, the life expectancy of farm animals would be much shorter beyond the farm (6). Pollan argues that a good life for domesticated animals cannot be reached without the appropriate treatment by humans.
Now, we have a grasp on the treatment and ethics of farming animals. Pollan proposes that with the “good farm”, animals get to live according to their nature and to all appearances do not suffer (7). …show more content…
Here “natural” is defined as either instinctive or a trait or characteristic that is the product of evolution. This view considers that humans and non-humans (animals) evolved in ways that made humans generally disposed to harm animals and made animals disposed to being harmed by us. Even though humans may not need meat to survive, we have an evolutionary heritage, shown by the design of our digestion and shape of our teeth. Since this is a natural relationship between human and animal, it is said to be morally good. This focuses on the “they do it, too” defense, meaning it is okay to eat meat because animals too eat animals. Being a “reasonable creature” allows for you to find reason for anything you do. This violates the fact that because something is natural it must be good. If we base human mortality on the natural order, we are suggesting that murder and rape are natural, too. Murder, rape, genocide, and racism are instinctive characteristics that have developed through evolution. Because they are a product of evolution, they are natural, therefore they are morally good, which is not the case. Just because something is a natural product of evolution does not make it morally permissible. Even though domestication is a natural product of evolution, it is not necessarily morally good. Domestication can result in slaughtering and inhumane treatments. It can also result in the inhumane raising
Argument for Eating Animals
Here, I present an argument for the conclusion that it is morally permissible to eat humanely farmed meat.
Michael Pollan presents the argument that “sometimes eating animals is …show more content…
Polyface is a “good farm” owned by Joel Salatin. The farm has 550 acres of grassland where six different food animals are raised in an ecologically and humane way. Pollan argues that each species can fully express its physiological distinctiveness, meaning chickens live like chickens; cows, like cow; and etc., (5). The process is simple, the animals have a rotation, with each either grazing or fertilizing the pasture, which allows them to be happy. In the same way we recognize animal suffering, we see animal happiness (5). For animals, happiness is consistent with the opportunity to express its character and nature. The animals on Polyface Farm have the opportunity to express their natural characteristics by having the freedom to graze the pasture and live a humane life. This life for domesticated animals cannot be achieved without humans (5). The domestication process is not a form of enslavement, but rather a natural evolutionary development (6). Domestication is a natural product of evolution and without it, the life expectancy of farm animals would be much shorter beyond the farm (6). Pollan argues that a good life for domesticated animals cannot be reached without the appropriate treatment by humans.
Now, we have a grasp on the treatment and ethics of farming animals. Pollan proposes that with the “good farm”, animals get to live according to their nature and to all appearances do not suffer (7). …show more content…
Here “natural” is defined as either instinctive or a trait or characteristic that is the product of evolution. This view considers that humans and non-humans (animals) evolved in ways that made humans generally disposed to harm animals and made animals disposed to being harmed by us. Even though humans may not need meat to survive, we have an evolutionary heritage, shown by the design of our digestion and shape of our teeth. Since this is a natural relationship between human and animal, it is said to be morally good. This focuses on the “they do it, too” defense, meaning it is okay to eat meat because animals too eat animals. Being a “reasonable creature” allows for you to find reason for anything you do. This violates the fact that because something is natural it must be good. If we base human mortality on the natural order, we are suggesting that murder and rape are natural, too. Murder, rape, genocide, and racism are instinctive characteristics that have developed through evolution. Because they are a product of evolution, they are natural, therefore they are morally good, which is not the case. Just because something is a natural product of evolution does not make it morally permissible. Even though domestication is a natural product of evolution, it is not necessarily morally good. Domestication can result in slaughtering and inhumane treatments. It can also result in the inhumane raising