Maintenance of ethical principles is essential to the sustainability of the globe. In fact, lack thereof compromises the development of humanity, and this situation could result in unpleasant behavior. With this in mind, it is worth acknowledging the fact that the current controversies associated with the inhumane treatment of animals are justifiable. Specifically, the process of preparing animals for consumption is primarily based on the final presentation to the consumer and not the welfare of the animals. As such, this situation questions the ethical principles of the individuals who consume meat. According to McClelland (4), inhume treatment of animals is often overlooked because the law gives a provision for the humane killing of livestock before slaughter. As a result, many people assume that the meat they consume has been prepared to the most ethical standards through humane killing. Nonetheless, this assertion is erroneous because animals are exposed to stressful environments before their slaughter or preparation. This paper evaluates the ethical principles associated with the consumption of animals. It provides a rationale for the ineffectiveness of the current humane slaughter policies and how their implementation does not favor moral principles. For a fact, ethical meat consumption can be justified through humane treatment of animals, which unassured in the current generation.
Firstly, cows are subjected to an inappropriate slaughter environment making them feel threatened and unfamiliar to their surrounding before the slaughter process. Because humane slaughtering principles give a provision for the proper subjection of animals to a conducive living environment, one is justified to claim that most of the environments animals are exposed to are harsh. According to McClelland, cows are exposed to unfamiliar objects moments before their slaughter as they progress through the chute. He explains that this situation leads to, “animal stress and loss of productivity at the slaughterhouse” (McClelland 4). This behavior is mainly attributed to the fact that the slaughterhouse organizations need to maintain their corporate positions. As such, it is essential to acknowledge the fact that slaughterhouse managements are mainly aimed at making the most out of their businesses. This situation leads them into prioritizing their profits over the welfare of the animals at the slaughterhouse. Therefore, they promote inhumane treatment of animals due to their obsession with making huge profits. The final meat consumer might not be aware of the nature of the environment the animals are subjected to before their slaughter. However, this situation does not make their actions ethical. The fact that the institutions distributing animal products are focused on breaking even and maintaining huge profit margins makes meat consumption unethical.
Additionally, the personnel at the slaughterhouse utilizes inhumane principles to enhance the quality of the meat produced by the animals. In some cases, drugs aimed at strengthening meat eminence are given to a great quantity thereby overdosing the animals. McClelland (7) reports that “stressing out and abusing animals in the last five minutes before their slaughter leads to lactate releases that make meat tough.” Consequently, the management at the slaughterhouses overlooks the fundamental principles established in the humane animal treatment law to enhance their corporate reputation. In simple terms, they value their clients more than the animals. These actions are undoubtedly unethical as they do not consider the welfare of the animals during the slaughter process. Far from that, the primary reason for the operation of these slaughter environments is not to secure the well-being of the animals but to maintain a large customer base by producing quality meat in the cheapest way. Animals are, therefore, subjected to unsympathetic settings before their slaughter due to the perception associated with enhancement of meat quality. This situation makes meat consumption unethical due to the inconsiderable treatment issued to the animals. To make this condition lesser disheartening, animal welfare should be prioritized over profit margins.
The preparation of lobsters during the Maine Lobster Festival is unethical and inhumane as they are boiled alive. According to Wallace, utilizing this approach makes the last food more tasty and appealing. However, it is worth noting the fact that it is inappropriate to boil an animal just for gustatory pleasure. Like human beings, animals ought to be treated with respect while they are alive or dead. Nonetheless, the nature of the treatment accorded to lobsters during the MLF defiles the ethical principles associated with the humane treatment of animals. Boiling a creature while it lives is not only irrational but also inhuman. Consequently, the consumption of these organisms during the festival is unethical since no moral principles are taken into account during the preparation process. Wallace (62) mentions, “The lobster will sometimes cling to the container’s sides or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof.” With this claim, he seeks to establish the level of inhumanity embraced by the personnel preparing the meal. Specifically, they are unaware of the fundamental animal rights and they are more than willing to expose the organism to continuous pain as long as it benefits them. Consequently, the current generation does not appreciate the ethical treatment of animals.
Furthermore, meat consumers do not care about the nature of the treatment the animals were subjected to before their preparation. This situation is properly revealed in the Maine Lobster Festival. Wallace (50) mentions that modern organizations such as the CNN publicize this event, and it is attended by thousands of people from all over the world. Regardless, their primary concern is based on the quality of the lobsters served and their taste. Only a section of this population takes their time to understand that the lobsters were boiled alive. Instead of noting this important point, the people attending the MLF are so impressed about the festivities of the ceremony that they overlook the welfare of the lobster. Wallace (57) poses a question, “At which part of the festivities is watching trucks pull up, and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and slaughtered right?” With this prompt, he reveals the unethical treatment accorded to livestock during their slaughter and the lobsters during their boiling. These actions show the large levels of wrong treatment animals are compelled to endure at the hands of rational people who do not care about animal rights. Consequently, inhumane treatment of animals is pervasive in the current generation.
Unlike human beings, an animal’s life is filled with multiple difficulties that are enhanced by the peoples’ actions. Specifically, a large extent of many consumable animals lives is comprised of their involvement in the betterment of the lives of human beings. For instance, large-scale production of crops involves the utilization of oxen in the preparation of the land for cultivation. Nonetheless, regardless of their participation in the enhancement of people’s lives, there is minimal consideration accorded to their welfare. One would expect that a painless death would be a priority to the individuals slaughtering these productive organisms (Pollan n.p). However, this is not the case. Instead, the core needs of these animals are not met making it almost impossible for the animals to experience tender care under the supervision of the humans and during their slaughter. According to Bramble (n.p), “once an animal has had her basic needs met, a painless death cannot harm her, at least not in the sense in which harm is necessary for an event to be bad.” Therefore, eating meat would have been justifiable if the treatment accorded to the animal during its life is acceptable and the slaughter process was humane. The current procedures experienced by the animals are not sufficient to justify their ethical handling during and before their slaughter.
In the large scale production of chicken, their restricted movement and improper handling are unethical due to the pain the animals are subjected to. According to Singer (n.p), chicken producers choose to confine the flow of these animals to make it relatively easier to handle them than it would have been if they were free range chicken. Additionally, a huge number of these animals are stuffed in one cage to minimize the costs of handling them. In some extreme cases, the chicken is issued with a restricted diet to enhance their rapid growth at the expense of their health. This approach is taken to make the animal appear mature to the consumer thereby influencing them to make a purchase. Singer mentions, “ the injuries inflicted on chickens by catchers stuffing 600 birds an hour into crates to take them to slaughter; and the failure of the stunning apparatus to ensure that all birds are stunned before they have their throats cut” makes the entire handling process inappropriate. From an ethical point of view, one would expect that a humane form of treatment is accorded to these organisms before their slaughter. However, this is not the case. Far from that, many large-scale chicken producers prioritize meeting the demands of a large customer base at the expense of these animals. Consequently, meat consumption is unethical due to the nature of treatment the organisms are exposed to.
Contrastingly, other authors argue that the current treatment animals are subjected to during their slaughter is humane, therefore, making meat consumption ethical. For starters, McClelland gives a convincing account of how humane animal slaughter has come a long way. She mentions that the current levels of sacrifice are quite painless making the entire action lesser disheartening. For instance, before the actual slaughter of the cattle in the slaughterhouse, the animals are stunned using a particular bolt gun. This equipment is used to drive a small bolt into the skull of the animal about to be killed stunning it instantaneously. The slaughter process after that is lesser painful than it would have been in the absence of this equipment. Additionally, the overall environment is quite appealing since the cattle are placed in separate locations during their slaughter. Specifically, the animals do not witness other cows being killed, and there is minimal noise produced due to the stunning action. McClelland (7) mentions, “at least 95 percent of animals stunned on the first shot (usually with a captive-bolt gun that shoots a steel bolt into the head). No more than 1 percent falling. No more than 3 percent mooing. No more than 25 percent being hit with an electric prod.” With these statistics, one can be convinced that the abovementioned methods are acceptable in the humane treatment of animals and can, therefore, justify the ethical consumption of meat. As a result, this argument is sufficient to dispute the negative remarks associated with the inhumane slaughter of animals.
In spite of the current reforms in the humane treatment of animals, there is no justification for wide improper treatment of animals before their slaughter. As much as one is justified to claim that many initiatives have been made to make the entire situation better, there are some drawbacks realized in the dispensation of the humane treatment of animals. For starters, agitating the animals’ moments before they are stunned using inhumane ways such as lashing is unjustifiable. Regardless of the positive impact realized in the enhancement of meat quality, one cannot overlook the fact that the treatment they are exposed to is unethical. This action is mainly inconsiderate of the welfare of the animals and can therefore be described as unscrupulous. In fact, it shows how much the people at the slaughterhouse are more concerned about the quality of produce they deliver to the market instead of treating the animals properly as they should. Therefore, the current measures taken to enhance the humane treatment of animals cannot guarantee their acceptable treatment. In simple terms, the law cannot oversee the dispensation of proper treatment to the animals since this matter is purely based on the character of the individuals handling the animals. On the other hand, the action of boiling lobsters while they are still alive to augment the quality of the final product reveals the high level of inhumanity embraced by a large section of the human population when it comes to handling animals. The fact that many consumers attend the Maine Lobster Festival but do not outline the dangers posed to these animals justifies that the consumption of meat is unethical.
In conclusion, the ethical concerns associated with the use of meat are justifiable due to the nature of the treatment accorded to animals before and during their slaughter. For a fact, the implementation of the Humane Slaughter Act aimed at preventing the needless suffering of animals during their slaughter has made an influential impact in the elimination of inhumane animal treating. However, it has been insufficient in eliminating this problem entirely since animals are still subjected to unethical treatment in their preparation. For instance, boiling lobsters alive or flogging cattle moments before their slaughter to enhance the quality of the final product is mostly inhumane. One cannot, therefore, claim to care about the welfare of animals through humane animal slaughter if these are the kind of actions done to the animals a few moments before they die. Additionally, the fact that a large section of the meat consumers overlook the nature of the treatment the animals they consume were subjected to before makes the situation more disheartening. Consequently, there is a need to evaluate the nature of the treatment people make the animals endure before they are slaughtered. In fact, more emphasis should be based on exposing the animals to an honorable dying environment rather than meeting the demands of a large customer base. Until then, the controversies associated with the ethical concerns about meat consumption will continue to be experienced. Additionally, eating meat will remain to be unethical since the treatment shown to the animals is largely unacceptable. Therefore, the moral principle about eating meat can only be realized through the proper treatment of animals before and during their slaughter.
Works cited
Bramble, Ben. "Put Your Ethics Where Your Mouth Is". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016.
McClelland, Mac. "This Is What Humane Slaughter Looks Like. Is It Good Enough? - Modern Farmer". Modern Farmer. 1-12. 2013. Print.
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal’S Place". Michaelpollan.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 May 2016.
Singer, Peter. "A Vegetarian Philosophy." Consuming Passions. Manchester: Sian Griffins & Jennifer Wallace, 1998. 66-72. Print.
Wallace, David Foster. "Consider the lobster." Gourmet magazine (2004): 50-64. Print.
