Analysis Of Tristram Mcpherson's Why I Am A Vegan

Good Essays
Tristram McPherson enthusiastically sets out to prove that killing animals under nearly any circumstance is morally wrong. In “Why I am Vegan”, he lays out a multitude of different reasons which it is wrong to kill even painlessly. McPherson has several very valid and reasonable ideas however they lack any type of support as to why they should be upheld. McPherson spends a lot of the second section considering the autonomy and future of the animals; however, more importantly he compares the killing of animals to the killing of humans. McPherson does not provide adequate reasoning for why the practice of killing animals is morally wrong. I am going to show that it is morally ok to end the life of an animal if it is done humanly. This is going …show more content…
The title of McPhersons work is ‘Why I am a Vegan’ which relates the majority of the work to why killing animals and using their products is wrong. That being said, I would assume almost anyone would find it troubling if someone thought it was ok to kill other humans; this is because humans have rights that animals do not. We have a duty to animals to treat them justly and humanly but they don’t have rights equivalent to ours. McPherson relates his examples to humans so we would be able to relate to the examples and be able to have perspective, however it doesn’t work in this argument. McPherson states that “killing typically interferes dramatically with the victim’s autonomy” yes this is true for humans and it is also true for animals (McPherson 5). He also states “it can be wrong to deprive a person of a valuable future” again this is true for humans and animals even though they can’t perceive or value it (McPherson 6). Where the problem arises is the fact that humans and animals are inherently different. Humans have a vastly different and more complex idea of autonomy and also a greater sense of their future. This being so it puts humans on a separate level than animals. We as humans don’t necessarily look at ourselves on equal standing with the squirrel running across the road trying to avoid oncoming traffic. Over hundreds of years the human species has evolved and taken control of the lesser species, distancing ourselves from them as a result. The relation to humans also fails because being human we value other humans lives more than any other lifeform. This is because they are our own kind, people generally value the lives of their own family members over a stranger’s, humans valuing humans is just on a much larger scale. For example, if someone had a gun to the head of your mom and a complete stranger and unfortunately one had to die most people

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    So, the statement that is claimed before could not possibly be true if more animals are being killed than saved. To finish, animal testing is cruel and unreasonable. There are many other ways to stop the cruelty from spreading, yet not many people are willing to take the chance to stop it. Not much protection is put towards these animals. Stopping America from making animals distressful, locked up, and treated unfairly could make the country a much better place for humans and…

    • 1293 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This gives the reason for equality as there is not moral explanation why it should not be considered. We make animals suffer greatly in order to satisfy our needs of food. This, according to the author, can be described as speciesism as animals are killed in many horrific ways. It denies any other species interests other from humans in every way because we doing for nothing else but pleasure. Also, Singer suggests that experimenting with other species for human interests is another major form of speciesism.…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In addition, it is considered a social norm to eat animals, but extremely wrong to eat another human. Although this is a norm, this belief technically makes people Speciests because they are favoring saving their own species over other species. By killing animals simply to pleasure our taste buds and considering animals to be acceptable to eat, humans prove themselves to be Speciests. Not only do humans eat animals, but they also use them as test subjects. It is considered very unethical to use a human as a test subject in an experiment even for biomedical research, so animals are used.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In conclusion, killing animal have both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of killing animals are used for food, out of suffering, and dangerous animals. These reasons are the important point that we can kill animals for surviving and helping them. In contrast, we should not kill animals for these following reasons: the cruel thing, the animal extinction, and contrast to religion. In my opinion, killing animals is not appropriate.…

    • 935 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    ’There is nothing wrong with rearing and killing animals for consumption ’. Eating animals involves many aspects that may not be morally right. Philosophers may take into account violated rights, interests, human interests vs animal interests, rights argument and virtue ethics. Eating animals poses mainly two problems- is it wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish or Does it stop being wrong if the process involved are carried out humanely? These are two important questions philosophers debate on.…

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Animals don’t deserve to be tested or harm in anyway because they didn’t do anything. Animals should have at least some rights so we can improve how animals are abused, tested, and disrespected by humans. Would you want your pet to be taken away for testing? Would you want to watch the brutality of it? If not, then why let another animal go through this.…

    • 1066 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The same applies for all the other methods. Therefore, despite the futile efforts by mammalogists to justify their inhuman nature depicted in the killing of animals, the question still remains to be answered regarding the killing of animals. Other researchers have articulated that killing of animals, especially wild animals, could be beneficial. This is because the act helps in reducing the damages on the environment that is caused by these animals, increase in wildlife value, and increased willingness for landowners to tolerate damages by wild animals and removing animals from the general populations before they die (Conover, 529). However, these advantages are hard to quantify or rather measure especially when comparing the act with the suggested benefit.…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    John Gluck appeals to his readers’ emotions and morals in “Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher”. Through personal experience he realized that animals have their own personalities and unique qualities. Gluck also brings logic into the equation when he pointed out that animals have very similar pain receptors to humans. In “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading”, Barnard and Kaufman also use logic to persuade against animal experimentation. Data shows that testing on animals is not effective.…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Though I concede that in some situations, animal testing may be useful, such as in immensely important medical studies, I still maintain that it is unnecessary to make an animal suffer and be discriminated against. Although some people may think that animal testing is healthy and beneficial to humans, I believe that animal testing is unethical and utterly wrong because of the unfair repulsive treatment that animals receive from scientists. This topic is important because the world we live in is as much an animal 's world as it is a human’s world and right now humans are discriminating and enslaving…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In modern culture, human beings treat animals in ways termed as wrongful if meted out on them. People kill animals for consumption, cage them at will and even use them to conduct numerous experiments (Steinbock 1). Treating animals indifferently is morally incorrect. According to philosopher Peter Singer, no real difference between humans and non-humans justifies animal mistreatment. This is because humans evolved from animals.…

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays