A Practical Stand on why it is Okay to Eat Meat.
By: Francisco Ron
For: Professor Hill
January 22, 2012

As humans we recognize that we are at the top of the food chain. There are many contrasting views on the subject if it is morally right to eat animals. Anthropologists discovered that when humans learned how to cook with fire there was a major evolvement in the human brain. By cooking meat from dead animals that were hunted, a viable source of protein was introduced and adapted throughout our history. Obviously humans are so intelligent that we have now created a way to extract protein from other non-animal sources. Is that a justificatory defense not to eat meat? Eating meat is not wrong, but the whole process of how the meat gets to our freezers is not morally right. Animal rightist may say that the meat eaters are involved in speciesism. The discrimination of animals based on the belief that humans are superior. Animal rightist do not eat animals because they are living things and can suffer. Aren’t plants living things? And therefore, they may suffer when killed too. If that was the case, humanity will had starved to death long ago. So why is eating a cow or a chicken so wrong to these people? I would like to believe the reason behind animal rightist not eating meat is on the practice of how the meat is handled. There have been numerous reports about animal abuse and malpractice in farms and slaughter houses. I do not agree on how the cows, pigs, and chickens are treated in many cases. They are secluded from their freedom and enclosed in tight spaces where it is inhumane to live. Chickens may be in cages so small they cannot spread their wings and cows are living in confined places where they walk around in their own feces. I agree that this is not how to treat animals. We should have more respect to the natural resources that Earth provides us with. Animals in such case are natural resources. By abolishing the practice of the industrial food companies, we can have a more ethical way of bringing our meat to the table. There are some places that are called, “Happy farms.” These farms let the animals live freely until the slaughter, (which the animals know nothing about). Unlike traditional farms, these farms allow more space for the animals to roam and are not concerned with massive productivity. The cost of meat would rise significantly if we only had these so called, “Happy farms.” These farms would have to create exceptional living conditions for farm animals, feed them a balanced diet, and ultimately it would cost more and take longer to raise these animals for profit. Grocery stores and fast food restaurants demand for product is what makes it hard for the farmers to generate any type of ethical business. A way we can reduce animal cruelty is, if we as a society stop the demand for meat products. The problem is globalization therefore we have accustomed ourselves to the form of industrialization of food. If there were less people on Earth it would be more typical to use a forager method to attain our food. Since this is not the case, our society would have to take some radical actions to impose laws governing the handling and practice of our meat. Humans have taken up so much territory on Earth that the animals’ habitats are diminishing. Our society has to get proactive and implement rules on the raising of our animals. We do not need to eat animals to survive, but the way we raise these animals that we eat can improve. It comes down to moral ethics. It is not wrong to eat animals; it is wrong how industrialization has created a chain of animal cruelty. Natural selection has put us in place where we can decide to eat animals. If we took some responsibility on how the animals we eat were raised and killed we can solve this dilemma of, “If it’s right to eat animals.”