Singer and Mason: The Ethics of Eating Meat

Being utilitarian and ethicist philosophers, Peter Singer and Jim Mason concerns on ethics of eating meat, in the opinion of this paper, are implausible. In a book published in 2006, Singer and Mason base their argument in summary on the principle that animal eating animal is cannibalism. They criticize the methods of production to the packaging of meat, supporting vegetarians as they do not ethically abuse the morality of animals on consumption. Through opposing the opponents of human rights, Singer and Jason reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong to eat animals. With these arguments, this paper purposes to disagree with the proposition that eating of meat or rather animals are an ethical problem.

To begin with, Singer and Mason argue on the morality of animals. The argument brought forth is that animals feel pain whenever treated badly and they give an example of a hens beak being cut off because of feeding in a neighbors compound (Singer & Mason, 771). It is the explanation of such kind of morality that brings an issue and leaves a reader with a major question: did Singer and Mason really find the definition of morality before alluding such evidence? According to general understanding and interpretation offered by different dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias, morality refers to the principles of distinguishing between right and wrong. Now if the hen according to Singer and Mason example had morality, it would have known that it was wrong to go and eat at the compound of a neighbor (Foer, 45). However, it went on anyway and faced consequences, showing that since it doesnt have morality it is impossible to adduce the argument of ethics in eating the meat of that hen.

Secondly, Singer and Mason brings about the argument on factory farming opining that the harsh treatment accorded to animals during the manufacturing process of meat makes eating them ethically wrong (Singer & Mason, 771-772). Basically, factory farming refers to the system of rearing livestock by confining them indoors and using other controlled conditions for the purpose of consumption. The authors bring evidence from different scholars and advocates of animal rights. For example, they refer to Pope Benedict XVI statement that although human have dominion over animals, it does not justify the ill treatment accorded in factory farming (Singer & Mason, 772). Further, Roger Scruton, although a critic of animal rights, alleges that the true morality of the welfare of animals begins from the premise of treating animals. This then brings about the issue of morality, one that this paper has already ruled out in the above paragraph. It is a disappointment that instead of Singer and Mason discussing the hygiene conditions of the production process they go back to morality (Foer, 22). It is wrong to treat animals badly, maybe because they have feelings, they feel pain. However, the ethnic ground is not shown on why we should not eat the meat as how they are treated, frankly is not a concern to the consumers.

In addition, animals have a distinct moral standing from humans. According to Professor Timothy Hsiao, the capacity to perceive, feel or experience pain as Singer and Mason argue, does not give a sufficient evidence of the moral status of animals, hence the ethics argument (Foer, 57). Further, even in the Biblical perspective the fact that humans dominate all creation means that only them can decide whether it is wrong or right to eat animals and not the animals moral status. In fact, for us to maintain the proper food chain, according to Benjamin Franklin, we must eat animals just they eat each other to maintain the ecosystem equilibrium to avoid offsetting nature. Therefore, from all the arguments and evidence above, it is not unethical to eat meat.

References

Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Minneapolis, MN: HighBridge, 2006. Sound recording.

Foer, Jonathan S. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009. Print.