PLT

PLT – First Draft, 300 words

In Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place”, he uses two major sources to discuss the issues that surround the ethical question, should humans eat meat? He first introduces the writer, Peter Singer, into his piece for the purpose of asking, why is eating meat unethical. Singer starts his argument off by stating no one is equal, “People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact” (Pollan 3) This is a shock to some of his readers because he then states, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose” (Pollan 3). By stating these two quotes, Singer forces his readers to ask the question, how do we as humans decide if it is ethical to kill and eat animals? Animals have the goal as humans, to prevent pain. If no two humans are in fact equal, then how can we decide to use animals in the same way? To make his readers question their decision further, he compares humans with mental disorders to chimpanzees. People with mental disorders cannot operate the same way a chimpanzee can, so when do we decide to disclude the chimpanzee? Pollan states his opinion the next paragraph down and writes, because they simply aren’t human. However, because Singer knew the majority of people would have the same comeback as Pollan did, he uses the example, “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he is not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white” (Pollan 4).


PLT Continued, 500 words

In recent discussions of Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place”, a controversial issue has been asked whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. On the other hand, some argue that eating meat is fine and others say it’s not. Peter Singer, one of his main proponents, compares speciesism to racism. In the speciesist view, “it’s natural to give special consideration to one’s own kind” (Pollan 6). write a sentence that gives singers critique of this idea. Whats pollans response to singer?

Singer starts his argument off by stating no one is equal, “People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact” (Pollan 3) This is a shock to some of his readers because he then states, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose” (Pollan 3). By stating these two quotes, Singer forces his readers to ask the question, how do we as humans decide if it is ethical to kill and eat animals? Animals have the goal as humans, to prevent pain. If no two humans are in fact equal, then how can we decide to use animals in the same way? To make his readers question their decision further, he compares humans with mental disorders to chimpanzees. People with mental disorders cannot operate the same way a chimpanzee can, so when do we decide to disclude the chimpanzee? Pollan states his opinion the next paragraph down and writes, because they simply aren’t human. However, because Singer knew the majority of people would have the same comeback as Pollan did, he uses the example, “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he is not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white” (Pollan 4). Singer’s quotes are used mainly to make people reflect on their decisions to eat meat and question what the difference between people and animals really is and how unethical eating meat is. However, like every good writer, Pollan introduces another source into his Piece, Joel Salatin, with opposing views.

Joel Salatin has a completely different perspective on the ethicalness of eating meat. He owns and runs the 550 acre Polyface Farm in Virginia, here he raises six different species of animals to later produce meat out of. However, this farm is not your typical kill farm. Animals here are tranquil and live their lives in harmony. Pollan introduced Salatin into the piece to create a never-ending conversation on this controversial topic. Bringing in two different views creates this neverending topic and maybe to change their actions. Whether that be becoming a vegan or eating meat again. Pollan uses this quote to showcase the lives the animals have at polyface farm, “ To many animal rightists, even Polyface Farm is a death camp. But to look at these animals is to see this for the sentimental conceit it is. In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it, animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and and here I was seeing it in abundance” (Pollan 11) .


PLT- Continued, 700 words

In recent discussions of Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place”, a controversial issue has been asked whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. On the other hand, some argue that eating meat is fine and others say it’s not. For Peter Singer, his main component states that it is not ethical.

Singer starts his argument off by stating no one is equal, “People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact” (Pollan 3) This is a shock to some of his readers because he then states, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose” (Pollan 3). By stating these two quotes, Singer forces his readers to ask the question, how do we as humans decide if it is ethical to kill and eat animals? Animals have the goal as humans, to prevent pain. If no two humans are in fact equal, then how can we decide to use animals in the same way? To make his readers question their decision further, he compares humans with mental disorders to chimpanzees. People with mental disorders cannot operate the same way a chimpanzee can, so when do we decide to disclude the chimpanzee? Singer is making his opinion very clear to his readers, he believes everyone, including different species should be treated equally. Pollan processes Singer’s thoughts to he an form his own opinion. Pollon suggests that chimpanzees and humans can never be equal because they simply aren’t human. However, because Singer knew the majority of people would have the same comeback as Pollan did, he uses the example, “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he is not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white” (Pollan 4). Singer’s quotes are used mainly to make people reflect on their decisions to eat meat and question what the difference between people and animals really is. However, like every good writer, Pollan introduces another source into his Piece, Joel Salatin, with opposing views.

Joel Salatin has a completely different perspective on the ethicalness of eating meat. He owns and runs the 550 acre Polyface Farm in Virginia, here he raises six different species of animals to later produce meat out of. However, this farm is not your typical kill farm. Animals here are tranquil and live their lives in harmony. Pollan introduced Salatin into the piece to create a never-ending conversation on this controversial topic. Bringing in two different views creates this neverending topic and maybe to change their actions. Whether that be becoming a vegan or eating meat again. Pollan uses this quote to showcase the lives the animals have at polyface farm, “ To many animal rightists, even Polyface Farm is a death camp. But to look at these animals is to see this for the sentimental conceit it is. In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it, animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and and here I was seeing it in abundance” (Pollan 11) . This quote implies that even though the animals will soon be killed and eaten, they are not being tortured. Animal suffering is very obvious when poeple see it, most of the time it triggers an emotional response. This should be the same for animal happiness.

When I see PETA videos of animals in a slaughterhouse being tortured prior to being killed I react strongly. Forcing animals to stand in a crowded space, plucking their feathers and debeaking them while their still alive is extremely unethical. However, seeing animals on a large farm, grazing with lots of room before they are killed is they way they should be living if that’s what their future holds.


PLT- Final Draft

 

 In recent discussions of Pollan’s “An Animal’s Place”, a controversial issue has been asked whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. Some argue that eating meat is fine and others say it’s not. For Peter Singer, his main component states that it is not ethical.

Singer starts his argument off by stating no one is equal, “People are not, as a matter of fact, equal at all- some are smarter than others, better looking, more gifted. Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact” (Pollan 3). This is a shock to some of his readers because he then states, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose” (Pollan 3). By stating these two quotes, Singer forces his readers to ask the question, how do we as humans decide if it is ethical to kill and eat animals? Animals have the goal as humans, to prevent pain. If no two humans are in fact equal, then how can we decide to use animals in the same way? To make his readers question their decision further he compares humans with mental disorders to chimpanzees. People with mental disorders cannot operate the same way a chimpanzee can, so when do we decide to exclude the chimpanzee?

Singer is making his opinion very clear to his readers, he believes everyone, including different species should be treated equally. I can understand where Singer’s point of view is coming from, just because they are animals does not mean we can get use out of them. They can’t communicate with us what is going through their mind and what trauma they are encountering when humans make them suffer.  I think that some people are very cruel to animals and how they kill them for meat. Even though they’re animals does not mean they should have to suffer for our pleasure and hunger.

Pollan processes Singer’s thoughts to form his own opinion. Pollan suggests that chimpanzees and humans can never be equal because they simply aren’t human. However, because Singer knew the majority of people would have the same comeback as Pollan did, he uses the example, “To exclude the chimp from moral consideration simply because he is not human is no different from excluding the slave simply because he’s not white” (Pollan 4). Singer’s quotes are used mainly to make people reflect on their decisions to eat meat and question what the difference between people and animals really is. However, like every good writer, Pollan introduces another source into his Piece, Joel Salatin, with opposing views.

Joel Salatin has a completely different perspective on the ethicalness of eating meat. He owns and runs the 550 acre Polyface Farm in Virginia, here he raises six different species of animals to later produce meat out of. However, this farm is not your typical kill farm, animals here are tranquil and live their lives in harmony.

Pollan introduced Salatin into the piece to create a never-ending conversation on this controversial topic to make sure his readers are able to understand both sides of the issue. Bringing in two different views creates this neverending topic to make people question their actions or possibly change their lifestyle, whether that means becoming a vegan or eating meat again. Pollan uses this quote to showcase the lives the animals have at polyface farm, “ To many animal rightists, even Polyface Farm is a death camp. But to look at these animals is to see this for the sentimental conceit it is. In the same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it, animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and and here I was seeing it in abundance”(Pollan 11) . This quote implies that even though the animals will soon be killed and eaten, they are not being tortured. In my opinion, I believe if animals are living on a large farm where they are treated with respect and live peacefully before they die there isn’t a problem. Even though they’ll die they had a good life up until that point. I will continue to agree unless the animals aren’t treated with respect when they are killed. Animal suffering is very obvious when people see it, most of the time it triggers an emotional response. This should be the same for animal happiness.

When I see videos of animals in a slaughterhouse being tortured prior to being killed I react strongly. Forcing animals to stand in a crowded space, plucking their feathers and debeaking them while their still alive is extremely unethical. However, seeing animals on a large farm, grazing with lots of room before they are killed is they way they should be living if that’s what their future holds. I eat meat and before I wouldn’t think about whether the animal suffered of not but after reading this piece I do think about it and I respect the animal that died so I could have a good meal on my plate.