To Meat or Not to Meat, That is The Question:
The Indecisive Conclusion to Steiner and His Responders
In Gary Steiner’s article, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, Mr. Steiner states that the majority of people eat meat because it has been moralized and made allowable through various rationale like the idea that animals are incapable of comprehending pain or that it is justified to eat meat because by raising them free range, they at least had a good life, finally stating that all people should just go vegan in order to break from the practice and overall treat animals better. In the article “The Ethical Choices of What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner”, various readers of Steiner’s article respond to his opinion with varying ideas of agreement to disagreement and in between. Ultimately, by reading both Steiner’s writing and the responses, it becomes evident that there is no right choice due to the unclear gray area in which veganism and humane meat eating end.
In the opinion of …show more content…
. . view non-human animals as resources we are entitled to employ . . . in order to satisfy our needs and desires.”(Steiner 848). In a response that takes on this assumption, the writer who previously brought to light that it seemed contrary to Steiner’s lifestyle that he would see it fit to own a cat, asks, “And where does he draw the line between keeping a cow for milk and keeping a cat or dog for comfort and gratification?”(Kazez 852). By asking this question, Steiner’s choice to avoid considering pet comfort/gratification as a resource comes to light. This in itself elucidates the idea that there are many contradictions that living by the full vegan code creates. Also, it shows some fault in the argument brought up in the first paragraph because since animals and humans are both of equal standing, one shouldn’t be treated and kept as a pet if the other isn’t as
The Indecisive Conclusion to Steiner and His Responders
In Gary Steiner’s article, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, Mr. Steiner states that the majority of people eat meat because it has been moralized and made allowable through various rationale like the idea that animals are incapable of comprehending pain or that it is justified to eat meat because by raising them free range, they at least had a good life, finally stating that all people should just go vegan in order to break from the practice and overall treat animals better. In the article “The Ethical Choices of What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner”, various readers of Steiner’s article respond to his opinion with varying ideas of agreement to disagreement and in between. Ultimately, by reading both Steiner’s writing and the responses, it becomes evident that there is no right choice due to the unclear gray area in which veganism and humane meat eating end.
In the opinion of …show more content…
. . view non-human animals as resources we are entitled to employ . . . in order to satisfy our needs and desires.”(Steiner 848). In a response that takes on this assumption, the writer who previously brought to light that it seemed contrary to Steiner’s lifestyle that he would see it fit to own a cat, asks, “And where does he draw the line between keeping a cow for milk and keeping a cat or dog for comfort and gratification?”(Kazez 852). By asking this question, Steiner’s choice to avoid considering pet comfort/gratification as a resource comes to light. This in itself elucidates the idea that there are many contradictions that living by the full vegan code creates. Also, it shows some fault in the argument brought up in the first paragraph because since animals and humans are both of equal standing, one shouldn’t be treated and kept as a pet if the other isn’t as