Should Animals be Kept for Human Consumption?

Keeping Animals for Human Consumption
Name
Institution
Keeping Animals for Human Consumption
Introduction
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations produces over 17 million tons of meat annually (FAO Statistic division, 2015). The case is the same everywhere as statistics show that up to 93% of people in every country are meat consumers. Even as animal welfare and animal rights activists continue to call for the ban on keeping animals for consumption, the number of meat consumers has continued to soar. Some researchers have also indicated that the continued rearing of animals for meat consumption has contributed to the increase in green gases which is responsible for global warming. These researchers have been warning that global warming will continue to increase unless the modern animal rearing practices are checked. Above the global warming claims, the main question that has lingered in the minds of many people is whether rearing animals for consumption is ethical or not. There is enough evidence to prove that rearing animals for consumption presents no real ethical challenges and should therefore be promoted.
Animal Welfare
There has been much debate in the society regarding the issue of animal welfare and animal rights but very few individuals have had a clear understanding on the differences between the two topics. Although people usually use these two terminologies interchangeably, they vary greatly in their meanings. According to the Animal Welfare Council (2015), animal welfare represents the human accountability on the well-being of animals. This includes aspects such as providing good housing, disease prevention, as well as handling all animals and animal products with care and respect. This implies that it is allowed to slaughter animals for human consumption as long as the animals are in a good state before being taken for slaughter. A large section of the animal welfare activists are farmers who raise animals for a living. Their understanding is that since meat is a part of the American diet, it is morally correct to raise animals so that we can consume them at a later date. The United States government provided further regulation for animal welfare through the Animal Welfare Act Bill that was passed into law in 1966 (Nordgren, 2011).
According to Nordgren (2011), while many people enjoy eating meat, very few enjoy hurting animals. This inconsistency brings about a “meat paradox’; people hate hurting animals but at the same time have a great love for meat. One of the solutions to this paradox is for people to completely stop eating meat. Vegetarians do not have any sort of inconsistency between their love for animals and their pessimistic views of meat and meat consumption. Another plausible solution is to fail to realize that animals are actually killed for meat. Although few individuals are truly ignorant, other meat consumers may live in a state of perpetual denial, refusing to liken beef with cow, pork products with pig, or even sheep with mutton. By restricting the level to which we relate the chain of meat manufacture with which it would be possible to delink meat from animals (States United for Biomedical Research, 2015).
In order to drive their point that animals should not be consumed, those propagating for animal welfare have attempted to offer studies in philosophy to define why it is wrong to eat meat. One of the claims that have been put across in trying to defend animal rights is that animals experience pain just in the same way as human beings do. Animal welfare crusaders insist that animals are not meant for the pleasure of men and as such it is wrong to use them in the same manner that people wish. The crusade on animal welfare has led to the establishment of basic rules on how animals should be treated in biotechnology research as well as in the slaughter houses (Rubistein, 2010).
The other reason why meat consumption should be encouraged is that it provides food to an already starving society. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food production has fallen drastically creating a scenario where more people are left without food for them and their families. With this food shortage in mind, meat has been acting as an alternative for feeding numerous people all over the world. However, animal rights activists are against such a move claiming that it goes against the animal rights. The biggest question that we would therefore be trying to answer is whether we should let people starve in order to save a few animals. While it is true that the rights of animals should be respected, it would definitely be wrong to let people die of hunger while there is an alternative that can be used to feed such people (McDonald, 2013).
Lastly, claiming that people should not eat meat is akin to throwing the American culture away. For a long time, our society used to practice hunting not only for sport but also for food. The hunting activity was one of the ways through which the society socialized. In recent days, the practice of hunting has slowly been disappearing mostly due to the loss of forests and this has left the only alternative to meat production as slaughtering domesticated animals. Given this background, it would be wrong for anyone to try and take a part of the country’s cultural heritage away just to prove a point. Of course, this does not mean that anyone should be cruel towards animals but it also does not mean that anyone should deny people what they love most in order to keep a few people happy. Even the religious pundits agree that it is right to eat animals as God has only given people dominion over animals. This can only mean that man has the liberty to consume animals since they have already been subjected to humanity and man has therefore the authority to do to them whatever thing he wishes (Yount, 2009).
Animal Rights
One of the most notable right activist groups of the 21st century has been the animal rights crusaders. This group comprises of individuals who are at the forefront in insisting that animals have rights that have to be respected. Despite the negative light that the media has cast animal rights crusaders, and attempts by some individuals to disgrace the movement by insisting that it is comprised of radical terrorists, most American people are behind the concept of animal rights. According to the results of a study done in the beginning of the 21st century, 75% of the American people are in agreement with the statement that “An animal’s right to live free of suffering should just be as important as a person’s”. This exceeding public support should come as a surprise as no one likes the thought of seeing an animal suffering. Actually, one of the society’s virtues is being kind to animals (Burke, Eckert, & Davis, 2013).
The eating of meat is ethically bothersome since it appears to go against the concerns for animal welfare. This may be seen as a definite case of cognitive discord in which a belief and a practice are in opposition, generating an unpleasant psychological state that people are forced to solve. As per the provisions of the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, people can ease this conflict by changing one of the inconsistent factors. Actually, there is enough evidence to prove that concern regarding animal welfare has a connection to the attitude that people have towards meat. Vegetarians point out the immoral manner in which animals are treated is termed as the reason why they reject meat consumption. On the other hand, the manner in which animals are treated is what generates the attitudes on meat consumption (BBC, 2014).
There is a general agreement that animal suffering is a bad thing and should be evaded as much as possible. Specifically, the modern slaughterhouse practices bring negative reactions among the public. There has been much talk about limiting the transportation of animals for slaughter. This is seen as a bid to prevent ...