People Who Eat Meat Act Immorally.

...

Eating meat, factory animals, poultry, and fish not only contributes towards animal abuse; it also is the case of environmental degradation, climate change, and social injustice. According to virtue ethics, character and motivation of a person are important for an act to be good or bad. A virtuous and ethical person is willing to do a morally good act and is unwilling to a bad. Ethical people believe in living a life that demonstrated value because they are compassionate, generous, and kind. People willing to participate in acts of animal cruelty and murder for providing trivial pleasures do not show the actions of a virtuous and ethical person. Since, people eating animals are behaving in unethical manner, their behavior is immoral for people to kill and eat people for food purposes (Singer and Mason 2006).

Moral. Several people enjoy consuming meat, but very few enjoy killing or harming other creatures. Such inconsistent beliefs form a meat paradox: people dislike hurting animals and like eating their meat. One of the moral solutions to overcome this conflicting paradox is exclusively stop eating any meat product. People who eat vegetarian food exclusively do not face the meat eating paradox and therefore they avoid their negative views on meat eating and fondness for animals. Another solution proposed is failing to recognize that animal killing is done for meat production. Some people live in ignorance; few meat eaters might live under tacit denial failing to equate the lives of animals to their meat. Loughnan, Haslam, and Bastian have proposed another possibility: people eating meat suppress their morality for animals. Reducing the unpleasantness related to both without the desire to hurt animals and eating meat, people withdraw their moral status of animals denying their capacity to undergo pain and suffering (156). Meat consumption is morally troublesome and it violates the moral concerns for the welfare of animals. Few people react to moral dilemma related to consumption of meat with a decreased willingness to consume. However, several others are able to overcome the moral dilemma and continue eating meat. Meat eaters might be able to resolve the tension involving positive attitudes towards animals and meat by reducing the level to which they are afforded their moral worth or status.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above discussion it is obvious to state that eating meat is an immoral activity. Animals matter and it is unfair to hurt and kill them without any reason or justifiable cause for the unnecessary suffering. The case against eating animals is not strong enough and each argument weather historical, biblical, or personal interests can be easily refuted. Then case for not eating meat can be supported by philosophical, ethical, and moral issues. People might deny themselves the moral standing because of their desire of treating moral conflicts of animal eating with optimistic attitude towards meat production and eating.

Works Cited

Clough, D. "Why do some people eat meat?" Epworth Review 32.2 (2005): 32-40. Print.

Diamond, C. "Eating Meat and Eating People." Philosophy 53.206 (1978): 465-479. Print.

Engel, Jr., M. "The Immorality of Eating Meat." The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature (2000): 857-889 New York: Oxford UP. Print.

Loughnan., S, Haslam., N, and Bastian., B. "The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals." Appetite 55 (2010): 156–159. Print.

Singer., P., and Mason., J. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Emmaus: Rodale, 2006.