"There's Something Wrong with Not Eating Animals"

Paper Summary:

This paper presents six opinions on vegetarianism, one of which is the author's. The other opinions belong to Porphyry, a classical author in favor of vegetarianism; Regan, a utilitarian for vegetarianism; Singer, another utilitarian for vegetarianism (Regan and Singer's articles are written in response and reply format); Jarvis, a former vegetarian now opposed to the lifestyle, but a "vegetable enthusiast";and Fitzroy, an avid, if not radical, opponent of vegetarianism. Using these sources, the author makes a case for supporting vegetarianism and perceiving vegetarianism as the correct choice for Utilitarians.

From the Paper:

"Vegetarianism may seem like somewhat of a fad diet in America but it is actually quite an ancient practice. It is the norm amongst some eastern religions, and many great minds have lauded its benefits, despite being in the minority opinion, for centuries. Eight of the most influential classical philosophers and scholars were vegetarians including Pythagoras, Empedocles, Theophrastus, Seneca, Ovid, Plutarch, Plotinus, and Porphyry. Porphyry, perhaps the least familiar, offers a very interesting defense of his beliefs. His argument has two parts. In the first place he says that although plants are alive they are not sensitive. Plants do not feel pain nor have any fear of being hurt whereas animals do. Sensation is thus the principal which joins us to animals and makes harming them wrong. Porphyry anticipates that critics would say there is something more which in fact separates humans from animals, rational thought. However, Porphyry points out that not all people are capable of rational thought, or sentiency, therefore if that is the criterion for treating people with justice it opens up the argument for injustice against those who do not meet the criteria such as infants and the mentally retarded. Infants, the retarded, and all humans are capable of sensation and all fear pain just as other animals do. Therefore in order to include all humans it would be necessary to lower the standard against harm from sentiency to sensitivity in which case other animals would fit the criteria. Porphyry assumes his reader thinks it is wrong to harm humans. By saying that the universal human condition is sensation, not sentiency, he implicitly makes the statement that it is wrong to cause suffering to those with sensation. Thus it is wrong to hurt animals therefore eating meat is wrong. (Porphyry, 143) Although I have been a vegetarian for 3 years this is the most compelling argument for my beliefs that I have ever read, and one I never thought of. Most vegetarians can give you a passionate response as to why they abstain from eating meat but not all of these arguments are rational. Consequently not all arguments against vegetarianism are either. Singer and Reagan make some important points along the line of Porphyry's argument and concerning utilitarianism and Jarvis and Fitzroy have equally interesting objections."

More papers on "There's Something Wrong with Not Eating Animals":

• Analytical Essay # 91020 : "What's Wrong with Pornography"
• Case Study # 31265 : "What's Wrong with Cathy H.?"
• Argumentative Essay # 52381 : "Eating a Vegan Diet"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: