Amr Kinnare

PHL 304

Duckkyun Lee

September 25, 2022

The main question that the author is tackling is: “Do we have a moral obligation to eat

meat?” In response to this question the author decides, yes, humans have a moral obligation to

eat meat.

The author uses inductive reasoning throughout this text to determine that we should eat

meat. The author's main line of supporting his claim is using historical justification, stating that

as humanity has always eaten meat it is our moral responsibility to do so. As the general practice

benefits humanity and benefits the animal from which the meat is being eaten. Throughout his

text, the author uses supportive premises along with argumentative premises.

The author begins the justification of his claim through supportive premises. This means

that the author beings by creating his argument using aspects that will support his conclusion.

“Eating meat is morally good primarily because it benefits animals” this first premise of his

argument implies specific questions, for example: “How does eating animals benefit animals?”

The author uses logical reasoning to lead to his second premise, “Domesticated animals exist in

the numbers that they do only if there is a practice of eating them.” This premise uses logical

reasoning as it shows that animals being created are only for the consumption of humanity,

therefore, the large population of these animals exists because of humanity, implying that this

large population of animals would not exist without humans. Furthermore, this premise is true,

however, it implies a question, “Does a large population of an animal benefit the animal?” The

author then furthers his argument by creating the subtext, “Consciousness, Happiness, Suffering,
and Death.” In this subsection, the author creates the premise of “If animals are conscious

beings, or can feel happiness and suffering then humanity is doing animals a favor.” As all of the

animal's needs are being met because of the animal's utility for humans. Furthermore, the author

uses this train of logical reasoning to support his conclusion to be true, therefore begins his work

with supportive premises.

However, as the text continues the author uses argumentative premises, which means that

the author address cetertain counterarguments along with uses evidence from different

philosophers to support his claim. This can be seen in subtitle 5, “ Other Writers: Compare and

Contrast” this is when the author looks at the different counter and supportive arguments made to

support his claim, then debunks or supports them with further logical reasoning. For example,

“The writer nearest to my own views that I have found is Baird Callicott” shows that the author’s

purpose in this is to try to counter the readers' objections to his argument using

counter-arguments the author is already aware of. In this sense, the author is using argumentative

premises.

Throughout this work the author supports his claim with strong evidence and logical

reasoning, however, the author creates the support that we should continue to eat animals

because we have always done so and it benefits humanity and the animals. Showing that the

main reason that we should eat meat is that we can benefit but also because in doing so we have

created a relationship with animals in which we can kill and eat them as long as we treat them

morally correctly, in the sense humanity feeds, cleans, and nurtures the animals. This brings me

to my counterargument in which if humanity found a better source of food than animals that

consists of higher nutritional value, then what benefit does humanity have in eating meat? In this

sense, the benefit that we would have to animals would become a responsibility. This
responsibility would have limited benefits compared to meat alternative food. While it may be

morally wrong to subject the animals to begin to fend for themselves and find food for

themselves it would benefit humanity as we would not need to tend to animals any longer. This

implies that the happiness and every aspect of pleasure humanity can have from eating meat is

returned to us from the non-meat substitute.