Engel’s Argument on Immorality of Eating Meat

            Engel argues that the people who show less value on non-humans as compared to humans are still involved in immoral practice of eating meat. The argument had been directed to people who live in societies where agriculture is greatly practiced hence options of food rather than meat are available. His argument shows how animals suffer and this has been associated to the increased rate of people owning agricultural foams worldwide. Having the knowledge concerning the slaughtering activities makes it clear that animals suffer much. Immorality in eating meat is compatible with biocentrism and anthropocentric worldview.

            Engel had been intending to show that eating meat is wrong to those who belief so. He believed that the nature of people’s believes is a determinant of how immoral the habit is. His argument however had not been directed to cause threats to those who eat hotdogs and hamburgers (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 187). Some people believe that it is not right to treat animals in an inhuman manner without a reason. People believe that it is important to euthanize the animals which are untreatably injured and undergoing suffering by protecting them from misery whenever possible. Engel believes that the more one is committed to these believes, that is how they are prone to the immoral behavior of eating meat.

            It is right that if there had no factory and agricultural farms, the world would be better. In the modern society, eating meat is not a necessity for human to survive hence causing suffering to them is unnecessary hence the activities in slaughter houses are wrong (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 188). As per Engel’s argument, it is true that the world would be better with no or few agricultural and factory farms in relation to people’s believes. It is important to opt on being a vegetarian. He argues that support to agriculture farms is not necessary and one should engage in other practices as well as refraining from eating animal meat as it would enable to lower the suffering of animals.

            Some people depend on animals for food. Several societies only depend on animal products for food. This is mostly associated with the areas where the soils are too poor to support growth of food and cash crops (Macaskill, 608). This makes them depend on animal products like meat for food. Saying that eating meat in such societies is immoral might not be right as it is the staple food. There is no good reason to prevent them from taking meat as it is the only source of food and if they fail to eat, they will eventually die or suffer from food deficiency conditions like malnutrition

            It is true that eating meat is not necessary for human beings. People have survived and doing their activities very well like the athletes. They mostly take vegetables. Changing from meat diet is a nice opinion as it would protect someone from getting various implications associated with eating meat. Some of the conditions that avoiding meat would protect someone from include; osteoporosis, stoke, heart diseases and arthritis among others. It is possible to personally abstain from taking the meat and encouraging the close associates to avoid taking meat (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 188). This goes hand in hand with advising them on the dangers associated with consumption of meat. Since people already know the suffering underwent by animals and the negative implications of eating meat, it is clear that the practice is wrong.

Conclusion

            It is immoral to eat meat in matters where people strongly have believes concerning how the animals undergo much suffering. The more people have strong believes, the much immoral people are. If the world had no agricultural farms it would be better as there would be no animal suffering. This argument does not oppose those who like meat products but mostly is directed to those with various believes as outlined above. This argument does not apply for people who depend on meat as the staple food. There are various illnesses associated with meat consumption and changing from this diet by abstaining would help human beings to be safe from getting the negative implications of the diet. Immorality in eating meat is compatible with biocentrism and anthropocentric worldview.

 

 

 

 

 

Work cited

Bramble, Ben, and Bob Fischer, eds. The moral complexities of eating meat. Oxford University   Press, USA, 2016.

Macaskill, Craig. The National Agricultural Directory 2011. RainbowSA, 2010.