| | Gotcha, she is vegetarian, but it seems she doesn't take offense to it.
A mistake is I needed to substitue 'refined carbohydrates' for 'carbohydrates.' Admittedly, I don't want to get into a nutritional argument on this website, which is an issue this essay brings up.
Essay:
There is one topic being debated heatedly in the field of food and nutrition: the question of eating animals. The winner of this issue will decide the fate of humanity because food plays a very central role in man’s life (man meaning the species, not the gender). What one eats and how much determines how well man lives and the resulting happiness gained from life; being hungry or sick because of bad nutrition will always degrade the quality of life while good nutrition will give one the energy to live life to its fullest—which benefits everyone, from oneself to those one acts with. If it is bad to eat animals, then humanity will have to radically change its eating habits, if it’s fine, then a large part of human nutrition remains intact.
The question of eating animals has two distinct parts. The first is ethical and the second part nutritional. The standard I am using is man’s life, which holds that all life-promoting actions/beliefs are good. This standard allows me to determine if consuming animals is really best for man and answer the question of eating animals accordingly. The ethics of eating animals deals with the morality of consuming animals for food; the second part deals with whether eating animals is nutritionally healthy or not. It requires getting to the heart of the concept of rights and value and finding what these words truly mean.
The morality of eating animals ultimately stems from one question: How different are we from other animals? For example, humans can feel pain and communicate with others and even some animals. However, animals can also feel pain and are capable of communication (however primitive)—even with humans. It is claimed that humans have rights and that animals do not, but why do humans claim rights and, even deeper, what is the nature of rights (and why should anyone have rights at all)? In order to answer the question of ‘is it moral to eat animals?’ I will define nature of rights to determine anything that qualifies for rights and anything that doesn’t. Next, I will discern the any distinctions between man and non-man because if I determine the distinction between man and non-man I can determine what groups qualify for rights, if any.
Peter Singer, a prominent advocate of animal rights, believes that the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is the morally relevant factor for determining rights (Klein 2004). By this standard, since animals can feel pain and joy, they deserve rights. However, this standard is based on utilitarianism (a philosophy that aims to maximize pleasure and minimize pain), which cannot provide good moral guidance and is anti-individual, and, for this reason, should be rejected. In brief, utilitarianism is the maximization of overall happiness, with the ends justifying the means. This can be used to justify actions such as confiscating the property of the rich and giving to those who want it or the killing of ‘unpleasant’ or just even just ugly or dumb people (they may annoy some people), which goes against the rights of an individual. Additionally, it doesn’t define what ‘happiness’ is and how to achieve it, so happiness could be wholesale slaughter of other people, which would be an acceptable goal if the majority agreed with it—whom would then set off to slaughter the minority—or happiness can be defined as ‘being wealthy’ and then that would justify theft and fraud in order to achieve it, since the goal is maximum happiness and robbing (even killing!) a few wealthy people is justified by utilitarianism. As seen, it is less about happiness and more about mindless self-indulgence.
Tom Regan, another such advocate, argues that all individuals (humans and non-humans) have inherent value (Klein). The qualification for this value is being able to act, have memory, desires, and others things (he isn’t very specific); if something has these traits they automatically have this inherent value. However, true value depends on the existence of a living being that has a choice between life and death; therefore, values are things required to continue that being’s life. If a being existed that could not die, regardless of its actions, that being would have no values since it does not need to make the choice between life and death (no matter its choice, it lives). Contrast this with a human being, whom must eat, sleep, drink, and find shelter at a minimal to survive, this being will therefore value food, water, shelter, and sleep (amongst other things not that overtly to survival) because those are the actions it must do in order to continue living. Therefore, inherent value is an invalid concept and animals, including humans, do not possess any inherent value and are valuable only to predators and those who seek make them subservient. No inherent value should not be confused with no value; an animal can become a pet, providing value to the own through emotional attachment or utility (seeing-eye dog). Also, an individual human’s life is, usually, very important to that individual, and has great value.
However, another classification of values comes into play: moral values. Moral values are the values pursued by organisms that can choose and reason, which is called volitional rationality; humans are the only known species to possess this. This is because having volitional rationality means that a system that guides choices and actions is needed. For, without choice, guidance is not needed because the individual will commit said action regardless and without reason, moral principles cannot be derived. It is said that animals have some sort of intelligence, this is true, but it is a primitive type of intelligence incapable of rationality because they can’t understand advanced concepts, and even the full gravity of its own existence other than the fact that it exists—show me a non-human that can pass a college-level chemistry course and I’ll reconsider. They also lack free will, the ability to choose change habits and minds on their own accord, which may or may not be because of external stimuli, while animals only change habits because of external stimuli. Therefore, animals do not have volition rationality or even normal rationality.
The leads to the basis of rights, in order to a being of volitional rationality to survive in a society of other rational beings each individual must have a set of freedoms that allows them to maximize the use of their rationality; this leads to the rights of life and its derived rights of property and others (such as a fair trial). Since animals do not possess volitional rationality, they do not get rights. Also, consuming and using animals for food and test subjects is beneficial to humans, it allows them to live and develop treatments for a variety of ailments, and, therefore, of value to humans. Foer says in his book, “Cruelty depends on an understanding of cruelty, and the ability to choose against it. (Foer 2009)” While this is true, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of eating animals, since animals do not have rights, treating animals cruelly is of no moral implication. Cruelty should not be confused with sadism, which is the act of causing pain for the sake of causing pain. Cruelty may serve a purpose in man’s life beyond causing pain to such animals (food, etc.) but sadism’s only goal is to cause pain. The debate of whether sadism is moral or not is still ongoing and I am no expert on this matter, so I will not say more.
The second point is, whether eating animals is healthy for human life or not. Many current nutritionists claim meat is unhealthy and can lead to problems such as heart disease and being overweight. However, all of the evidence they cite is merely observational, meaning it cannot prove a hypothesis but only establish it. Many clinical trials have been done to test this hypothesis but all of which have failed to prove this hypothesis. Additionally, there have been many recent clinical trials involving testing low carb diets vs. low fat diets, with the low carb diet always winning. Despite this lack of evidence, it has not stopped many from pushing a low-fat (and low meat in general) diet. To add salt to the wounds, there is far more evidence that carbohydrates are the cause of things such as obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, and all the other diseases of civilization. I will talk about fat gain, scurvy, and the nutrients in meat.
Fat mobilization is hormonally regulated by hormones which act to store or mobilize fat, such as insulin and adrenaline respectively, and cell’s surface area—the larger the surface area the quicker fat mobilization occurs. Now, when insulin (the only fat storing hormone currently known) is high, the fat cells will be unable to mobilize their fat stores and as a result the body will no longer get the energy it needs, which will then signal the hypothalamus to tell you are hungry and need to eat more. Now, as you eat more, the triglycerides will continually build up in the fat cells causing them to expand, this expansion increases the rate at which these fat cells mobilize fat through an increase in surface area. Eventually equilibrium is reached where the rate of fat mobilization equals the fat storage effect, from the combined effects of insulin, cell surface area, and fat mobilization hormones; this equilibrium results in the person having excess fat to satisfy cellular energy needs. Note that insulin actively suppresses fat mobilization hormones.
Scurvy is caused when cells cannot take in enough Vitamin C. Normally, cells need very little Vitamin C, so one’s intake can be low; however, Vitamin C and glucose compete for the same transport protein, which transports the molecule inside the cell, with glucose being favored in the competition. In cases where glucose is high (such as after eating a high carbohydrate meal), the amount of glucose is much greater than the amount of Vitamin C, this means that glucose will almost always win the fight to be taken up by the cell and that very little Vitamin C is taken up. The Vitamin C that isn’t taken up by the cells is eventually excreted in urine.
In the case of meat nutrients, meat has all the essential amino acids, with the bonus of them being in ratios that maximize their benefits to humans, and all thirteen of the essential vitamins, with large concentrations of Vitamins A, E, and all eight vitamin B’s. Also Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D are only found in animals, though Vitamin D can be made from sunlight as well. It is true that whole wheat contains all the essential amino acids as well, but in order to get enough of these amino acids, one must eat 3.3 lbs of whole wheat a day compared to .75 pounds of meat (Taubes 2007). Additionally, doing my own research on the INTERNET, I have found that all the essential minerals I have looked up are found in meat and always have been in sufficient concentrations to satisfy daily requirements.
Today, one of the most important debates in the history of man is occurring: the question of eating animals. This question is important because, whatever the answer, this will affect human nutrition for the rest of the species’ existence. If the answer is no, then humanity will have to radically change its eating habits, if yes, then a large part of human nutrition remains intact. As said before, nutrition plays a central role in a person’s life, it will determine the amount of energy one has during the day, which affects how well they function, the ability of the body to maintain itself—including defending itself against diseases, and, finally, plays a role in one’s quality of life because being hungry and weak all the time is not good for one’s health—physical, mental, and emotional.
Now, the first part of this question is its morality. In this essay, two defenses of animal rights are discussed, one defending animal rights on the basis of utilitarianism and the other on the basis of inherent value. As explained, both of these arguments rest on fallacious beliefs, either the incorrect philosophy of utilitarianism or some non-existent ‘inherent value.’ For the second part of the question, almost all so-called scientific evidence that claims meat is unhealthy is not substantial enough to prove anything, only establish a hypothesis, and all scientific evidence capable of proving such a point states meat eating is healthy. Based on these two conclusions, I am an advent supporter of animal consumption.
References:
Foer J. (2009). Eating Animals. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Klein S. (2004). The Problem of Animal Rights. Washington D.C.: The Navigator
Taubes G. (2007). Good Calories, Bad Calories. New York: Random House Inc.
|
|
