Friday, February 15, 2019

An Argument for Vegetarianism Essay -- Eating Food Vegetarian Vegetari

An Argument for VegetarianismABSTRACT In this paper I propose to answer the age-old reductio against vegetarianism, which is usually presented in the wee-wee of a sarcastic question ( e.g., How do you justify killing and feeding plants?). Addressing the question takes on special significance in the light of arguments which come along to show that even nonsentient life is intrinsically valuable. Thus, I suggest that we reiterate the question in the following manner When beings (who atomic number 18 biologic and indeed dependent on the destruction of other forms of life in differentiate to sustain their own) evolve into societies of moral agents argon they entitled and to follow that they retain their license to destroy other life in methodicalness to sustain their own? I answer in the negative. I struggle that such societies must continually earn that right by gentle in practiceivity that makes up for and augments the values that they destroy. Unlike other biological bei ngs, humans have complete control over what they fertilise, whether they eat, and whether they reproduce. Hence, the appeals to necessity that are ubiquitous in justifications of both vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets are inauthentic and must be accordingly forsaken. We will have to appeal instead to the value of crabby human activities that are fueled by our consumption of other lives. So you dont eat animals, but you do eat plants. Plants, like animals, are living things how do you justify killing and eating them?The mock indignation and air of self-congratulation which always accompany this question make it plain that the speaker does not take care the requested information but rather believes that he or she has delivered an master and decisive reductio ad absurdum against vegetariani... ...sort of axiology that last-person arguments are meant to establish. All creatures imaginable are valued and are attributed with at least one sense, from human beings (five-sensed) to l eeches (two-sensed) to clods of macrocosm (one-sensed). Any intentional act of violence against any of these is considered sinful, even an act done for a good cause (e.g., to feed human beings). It is odd, then, that Jainism is merely dismissed in environmentalist literature (Nash 1989, 70 Kalupahana 1989, 248 Curtin 1992, 141 n. 12).(3) My complaint present is against the deliberate ascetic. When people lead meager lives on the edge of physiological exhaustion and starvation because of the inequities of economic distribution, it is not they but their oppressors who do an hurt to the environment, using the latter to fill their bellies and their wallets through acts of social injustice.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.