The debates over the question whether it is humane to kill animals for food or should people treat them as equal living beings and eat something like soya instead have been discussed for many years, with no finishing point. It is hard to make any conclusion only from one side, as farm animals are specially grown to be killed after, while it is hard to imagine a domestic pet that was murdered for food. Thereafter, the objective of the following paper is to discuss whether it is ethical or not to kill animals for meat and is it actually possible for human being to give up the habits that they been living for many centuries.
What would happen if we imagine for a moment that there would be soya instead of meat in every product, while the traditionally tasted food would be not that pleasant anymore and people would only state that “in my days you could buy meat anywhere”. Yes, it is hard to think about that situation in real time; however, the movie known as “Soylent Green” that was shot in 1972 had made an attempt to depict what could have happened if people were eating ‘soylent green’ instead of normal food. The overpopulated planet do not cope with such a big amount of people, hence the majority of them were left to die because of the no food to eat. “Beef” is one of the biggest treasures a person can find, while “a jar of strawberries for 150 dollars” is a luxury that a common person could not afford. This means that the most important thing for people is not only food, but its taste and actually a human being would do anything to sense what he or she is in favor. The movie has made an attempt to show that food is even more important that human relations and sex, as the protagonists have overcome over others in many occasions (“Soylent Green”).
Some individuals might claim that there is food ethic and not killing animals for meat is a choice that can be easily maid, while the facts state that there is a vulture around us that is fostering to kill animals. It is enough to have a look at how the eating habit of Americans changes just in the recent decades. In order to prevent obesity and help the nation to lose weight, it was suggested by public to cut on bread and pasta, while it is a “sign of a national eating disorder” (Pollan 11). People are omnivores as the can survive and adapt to any kind of environment, while “there would be the bison and then the cow”, which means that there always would be certain novelty to eat (Pollan 304). It is important to mention that Michael Pollan states that people turn to killing animals not because of a necessity to survive, but because human beings cultivate taste as one of the major senses that the body is experiencing, which drives any acts and search for novelty. Moreover, cultural habits that does not have tendency to change for centuries play also a very important role when an individual is making a choice whether to kill an animal for food.
Thus, this is relevant to mention the point of view of certain researchers, who claim that not eating meat is a certain act of “free will” and “freedom from instinct” (Pollan 307). This is a dilemma that omnivores face, as it is hard for humans to stop eating meat because it conflicts with their appetites and inborn instincts. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that omnivores can be stopped when they are really determined to eat anything, and the most horrific truth is that other people can become a part ‘of anything’. This is where the human culture steps in and prevents such things from happening in a manner of different taboos (such as prevention of cannibalism). As long as people live within certain societies, they manage to regulate the cultural habits and set the norms for ethical eating, while killing animals for food is a part of those norms. Thus, people are guided be their sex and eating habits, while the latter seem to be more important to humans as they have made “an elaborate culture transformation of our relationship to food then there is to sex” (Pollan).
This is obvious that the farming industry is not producing any good, while vegetables are much healthier to eat. The studies that have been written by Korsgaard suggest that people tend to justification of killing animals for meat because there is a difference between our species. Thus, people seem to forget that it is not the same as superiority that gives a right to eat animals. Moreover, he addresses such an important issue that is related to the dilemma whether it is natural or not for animals to eat meat (Evensen, “The Ethics of Eating Animals”).
Thus, difficult to conclude whether killing animals for food in a humane way is ethical; however,it looks like that sometimes people cannot do otherwise. Cultural surroundings, habits, social interference as well as many other factors seem to prevent people from stopping eating meat, while by doing that they obey the nature and prevent other disasters from happenings.