Johnson 1

Drew Johnson

Prof. Pimentel

10/25/13

Philo. CT: M/W 10:15

My Vegetarian World View

Part I: Central Concepts:

At the center of my worldview is that the meat centric idealism many people have, has

come to a point where the world will no longer be able to sustain the habit. In this section of my

paper I will define and argue in favor of these central concepts; justice, utility, and rights.

First I will define justice, and what it has to do with turning animals into commodities. As

defined by merriam-websters.com, “justice is the quality of being just, impartial, or fair.” If we,

as tenants of the world, want to truly be just and fair, we must show this fairness to our fellow

non-human inhabitants. Would it be fair to enslave a whole group of our population and tell

everyone else that they were simply mindless human beings who are only good for personal

consumption? No it would not, so where is the justice in treating our animal brethren in such a

way. If we are use critical thinking in this argument, then we must therefore use justice, and there

is no justice in conquering and eating the other species of our world.

Johnson 2

Secondly I shall define utility, and how the meat industry does not achieve utility.

According to Pimentel’s manuscript, “utility is good/right if X achieves or promotes the

maximization of overall net benefits (either directly, by distributing various goods; or, indirectly,

by diminishing useless pain and negative variables, costs, obstacles or disadvantages.)” In the

case of dissociation from mass meat consumption, X is meat. When looking at the meat industry,

in regards to utility, the emphasis on meat does not maximize overall net benefits. Here are some

statistics to back up this claim, “It takes 7.5 pounds of protein feed to create 1 pound of 

consumable hog protein; and it takes 5 pounds of protein feed to create 1 pound of consumable

chicken protein. Close to 90% of protein from wheat and beans is lost to feed 

cycling.” (http://brucefriedrich.org/Vegetarian_Statistics.html) “Meat accounts for 10 percent of

Americans’ food spending. Eating vegetables, grains and fruits in place of the 200 pounds of

beef, chicken and fish each non-vegetarian eats annually would cut individual food bills by an

average of $4,000 a year.” (http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/why-go-veg-learn-about-

becoming-a-vegetarian/) There are numerous other statistics and reasons as to why the meat

industry lacks utility, and one could easily find this data through a quick internet search. So why

is it that there are so many valid reasons to cut down on meat consumption, yet people are very

reluctant to drastically decrease the amount of meat they eat? Generally it seems to be because it

is ‘easier’ to simply eat the meat that is so readily available, as opposed to finding an alternative.

Although this information is easy to find, people are content in minimizing the utility of their

own personal food consumption, because of how ‘easy’ it is to just eat meat. But these are actual

animal lives that are being destroyed because companies are eager to make money off of them,

Johnson 3

and they sell these lives at such cheap prices people are almost forced to buy them. Does the

meat industry truly maximize utility? I think not.

The third central concept I shall define is that of rights. Rights, as defined by Merriam-

Webster.com, are “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper.” Now obviously

various cultures all around the world have different ideas of what is just, good, or proper. But we

must shy away from the subjective natures of various cultures and look at meat consumption in

an objective light. Animals are members of this world, just as much as humans are, and they

have been around much longer than humans have. Just like people, an animal’s main goals are

survival and the continuation of their own species. They have to eat and sleep, they feel pain,

they express emotion, and they die at the end; just like we do. So why is it that they are not given

rights? In order to promote worldly good shouldn’t animals be treated just the same as people,

for people are just animals with a higher amount of creativity and ingenuity. We may like to

think that we are not the same as the ‘savage beasts’ that inhabit the spaces outside our walls, but

there is nothing but our own belief of dominance, that makes us any better than these creatures.

So in order to maintain fairness and equal rights for all, we should treat them as we would our

peers, and it is not common practice to eat our peers.

Part II: Self

My personal definition of self, is the entire package of what makes us individuals, the self

includes the body, the mind, and the soul (if such a thing exists). The self is the most important

aspect to each of our lives, and therefore should be treated with upmost respect. I believe all

creatures, be they single celled or multi celled, has some varying degree of self. Each living

Johnson 4

organism has one key purpose in life, the continuation of themselves and their species, so

therefore in order for a being to continue themselves and their species, they must have some sort

of idea as to their purpose here. It may be a remedial idea of self in some cases, ie worker ants, or

other lower leveled thinking creatures. The worker ant may seem to simply be one small part of a

much larger body of ants, but that ant knows it has a purpose, and it knows how to complete that

purpose. The purpose being to survive, the method of survival; learning how to initiate complete

symbiosis with the population around it, it knows that it must achieve these symbiotic

relationships to live in the world it knows. So there must at the core of this ant be some sort of

self, there is some kind of conscience telling it that it must continue surviving for the good of

itself and it’s species.

So if we can say that the ant has some semblance of self, I do not believe it would be too

absurd to say that any living creature, who’s main purpose in life is survival; has some sort of

self. Therefore if we are all inhabitants of Earth, and each of us has a form of self; do we not all

deserve rights? As a result of us all having rights, Justice must be accounted for. Now obviously

in nature there are predator and prey chains, and species eating one another will occur. But the

mass amount of death that humanity has inscribed upon the other living creatures of the world is

atrocious. Humans have taken to breeding mass amounts of animals simply for certain resources;

eggs, meat, milk, skins, bones, etc.. People have disregarded the individual selves in these

animals, because so many are bred that they simply become numbers and dollar signs. Where is

the justice in this relationship? Are we not tilting Nature’s scale of justice in the wrong direction?

We have become perpetrators of the natural law and no one is to blame. Simply because animals

do not have the ability to easily resist our persecution, does not mean they should be subject to it.

Johnson 5

If we attempt to abide by critical thinking, and believe ourselves to be promoters of justice and

rights, these rights must be extended to all living creatures. The animal lives on display in the

meat industry are not simply resources used for our wants and needs; they are living, thinking

selves. Just like ourselves, only manifest in a different form.

Part III: Others

In this section I will attempt to describe that animals should be considered others. Others,

as Merriam-webster.com defines it, “used to refer to all the members of a group except the

person or thing that has already been mentioned.” So this means that there is a wide and varying

degree of others, all dependent upon where the individual surveying their idea of ‘others’ finds

themselves. One could refer to groups of peoples that enjoy different sports as themself, others.

Or the people who are not in their immediate friend group could be considered others. Animals

could be considered others, while individual species of animals could be differentiated as others

from one another. Now others is not the same as objects, objects are generally regarded as non

living things, such as cars, buildings, tools, etc... This means that an other would have to be the

counterpart of an object, a living thing. So therefore anything considered other must be alive, and

by being alive they should have the rights granted to all living things. The bible, a book held in

high esteems all around the world, has a quote that reads, “Do to others as you would have them

do to you”(Luke 6:31) Readers of the Bible generally hold its teachings very close to their hearts.

So if an individual wants to be treated well, and know that other individuals probably want to be

treated well; why not extend this courtesy to all individuals with a self. Why are animals treated

Johnson 6

simply as numbers on paper and steaks on plates, when they are so much more than that? These

creatures are actively able to show emotion, and express intelligence, yet they are simply grown

like crops and harvested when deemed edible.

One could argue that if I’m going to use The Bible as a reference, I must address Genesis

1:26 that states, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them

have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over

all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” Now to inspect this we must

first define dominion. Dominion, as defined by dictionary.com, is “the power or right of

governing and controlling.” I do not personally subscribe to this but to those who do, let me ask;

how would you like to be ruled? How do you want your ruler to be? Do you want a kind and

loving ruler, who cares for your rights and distributes fairness? Or do you want a ruler who

captures and breeds you for its constant source of food? A ruler that does not care for your crying

and pain, but cares instead about making sure enough of your kind are made for their kind to eat.

This is the ruler that we have become; the systematic oppression of species we see as tasty has

lead us into becoming oppressive dictators upon a population of animals who only wished to

survive on this green world. If there is a god, and it truly put us in dominion over animals, it is

our moral obligation to treat these creatures with respect and dignity. For they are also creatures

of this alleged “God”, and the mistreatment we display towards our fellow creations must be

disturbing to say the least.

Johnson 7

Part IV: Objects

Objects, as defined by Merriam-webster.com, are “a thing that you can see and touch and

that is not alive.” Right in the definition we can see that animals do not belong in the category of

others. As living creature that can be seen and touched, they are obviously not simple objects,

and thereby should not be treated as such. A hammer does not have to fight for survival; it is a

simple tool, without thought or emotion. Therefore it does not have a self, and does not need to

be treated as such. The hammer serves a function just like an animal (including humans) serves a

function, the difference being that the hammer simply serves a function, while the animal serves

its function in order to survive. But the most fundamental difference between the hammer and

the animal is that the hammer is a lifeless thing birthed by people, and the animal is a living,

breathing creature with a mother that brought them into the world.

Now obviously as a vegetarian I believe that we should eat more vegetables, and

someone could argue that plants are living things, so that would make them others. But I would

disagree; plants are not born from a mother, but born from a seed. Plants may be alive, but they

do not mentally attempt to survive. The plant is imbued with the methods of survival and

requires no thought process to grow and survive. This means that they do not have a form of self,

like animals do, so they can be viewed more as living objects. As objects that can be easily

produced and sustained, along with a high utility of use, we should look to them as a utility food

item. As previously defined utility means that an item maximizes the overall net benefits. So

why grow a perfectly valid source of food and then use it to create another food product that uses

more potential food than it creates. According to clear-vision.org, “It has been estimated that

Johnson 8

500g of steak from intensively-reared animals consumes 2.5kg of grain, 10,000 litres of water,

the energy equivalent of four liters of petrol, and about 16kg of topsoil. Intensive beef production

is very wasteful of fossil fuels. In America, intensively-reared beef consumes 33 calories of

fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy it produces.” (The Benefits of Vegetarianism)

Not to mention, Also according to clear-vision.org, “It takes 10kg of plant protein to produce 1kg

of animal protein” (The Benefits of Vegetarianism) So if we are truly wishing to max utility in

the food industry would it not make more sense to utilize the 10kg of plant protein as food,

instead of wasting 90% of this plant protein to yield 10% of the possible food?

I realize that it is impossible to dissociate everyone from eating meat, because of how

deeply ingrained it is in human culture, along with the necessity of it in certain situations. I just

believe that the world could benefit greatly if plants were our emphasized food stuff, instead of

animals. Animal meat could be considered more of a luxury item, or an item that must be

produced in a method that is fair and just to the animals being used. I am not saying that no one

is allowed to eat meat ever again; I just think that people should drastically cut down on how

much meat they consume. The world will benefit from it, and thereby we will be benefitted.

Humans are literally cutting down the lungs of our world (the rainforests) to produce more cattle

grazing land, when the land that is already being used for food production could instead be used

to produce plants. This would create an easily sustained food stuff that can be ethically grown on

a large scale, unlike meat production. By moving away from eating so much meat and pursuing

plants as our primary food source, we could better utilize our grasp on food, and better promote

the rights of our animal counterparts.

Johnson 9

Part V: Nature

The definition of Nature is, “the physical world and everything in it (such as plants,

animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people”.(Merriam-webster.com) This

means that as animals, humans fall into the category of nature. We are a piece of it, just like

animals are a piece of it. So why have we seemingly attempted to create such an unnatural

relation with animals. Many people find themselves to be on a higher level, consequently they

physically elevate themselves into a position of power over animals. But this is not a position of

power in the sense of a stronger animal besting a weaker one. This is a stronger animal

systematically destroying and eating an entire other species, simply because the stronger animal

is smarter. It is not a natural relationship that we have anymore, it has become an unnatural

oppression of the other inhabitants of our world.

At the beginning humans had a balanced relationship with the creatures around them,

they relied upon a balanced diet of plants and animals; animals being less abundant and thereby

consumed by people at a lower rate. Humans were simply another predator in the food chain.

Then slowly agriculture paved the way to industry and a higher and higher demand for these

animals arose. People began to grow away from their previous harmonic, predator prey

relationship, into a complete subjugation of their animal brethren. Animals started being bred in

mass quantities to feed the growing desire for their flesh. Instead of a cycle of predators eating

prey as they are available, along with each population being adjusted to stay in tune with their

ecosystem. As predators die prey populations rise, causing predator populations to rise and so on.

But we have taken control over the natural cycle, and we have steered it into a dark parasitic

Johnson 10

relationship. A relationship where we literally produce lives to end, we have taken the role of

god and we are being irresponsible with the power.

There is obviously a difference between humans and animals, and that difference is the

ability to create and think on a higher level. But with this power comes a responsibility, a

responsibility to treat the other creatures of the world with respect. The Native Americans

sustained a natural and respectful relationship with the ecosystem around them and we should

look to them for example. A Native American named Sitting bull once said, “Every seed is

awakened and so is all animal life. It is through this mysterious power that we too have our being

and we therefore yield to our animal neighbors the same right as ourselves, to inhabit this land.”

(pantheism.net) I could not have said it better myself, we must treat the animals of the world as

other residents of this world, and it is our job to treat our fellow inhabitants as we would want

ourselves to be treated.