[Student]
[Professor]
The main argument of the article was to defend the rights of animals just as people defend basic human rights. The author takes a systematic approach by first describing the details of arguments against and for the basic human rights. The article moves from talking about human rights to animal rights in an unfelt way, and demands the equal treatment of all the animals just as humans treat their own specie. To defend this, he takes a scientific approach by saying that if we as humans deserve good treatment, then all of the other species around us deserve good treatment. This includes not using them for commercial or experimental purposes or using them as food.
The new thing that I learnt from the article was the term ‘speciesism’ that is used to define the biased attitude of humans towards the other species as compared to their own specie. The unequal and unjustified treatment is not a contemporary issue only. It has been present in human history since time immemorial.
Regarding the argument presented in the article, I agree with the author as animals are treated brutally by humans. Since animals can experience pain and discomfort, it is entirely inhumane to use them for our own purposes.
The contemporary point in the debate was based on ‘contemporary philosophy’ that describes the fallacious arguments presented by modern philosophers such as William Frankena to justify animal slaughtering by terming human motions and desires as the basis of entitlement that only humans enjoy, and not animals.
One Thing to Do about Food
The article is based on food, the nutrition it provides, its functional benefits and most importantly its origin. It brings into limelight the promotional campaigns, new marketing trends and the mushrooming trend of selling novel food products through creative advertisements. It further highlights the importance of this realization that what is more important is the origin of food that is, from where it actually comes. The more emphasis on adverts, the lesser we are concerned about the source of what we eat. And this is the dilemma of contemporary times (Waelbers, Stafleu and Brom).
However, food preferences today are devised by our personal food choices, but still our culture, peer pressure, religion, availability and accessibility of food undermine our food selection and dietary pattern selection. Thus our choice of food is always dependent upon a variety of factors other than just adverts and other influential promotions. Nevertheless, every year, there are various food claims, laws, acts and regulations imposed to meet the health objectives. All of them are not met as per the health statistics particularly in the US. This reiterates the fact that food adverts are still dominant over our food choices. This comes as news today since the food choices were usually defined by the socio economic status of individuals as per statistics of the last decade.
It's completely agreed that if two basic aspects were to govern food choices made by individuals today, they would be hunger and knowledge. These two driving forces determine has to what the dietary patterns of each individual or a family would be.
The reading is not only informational since it talks about various food based researches but also it's quite persuasive as it talks about a number of ways to make wholesome and healthy food choices that help us eat better, stay nourishes and keep healthy. The information provided can be formulated into a contemporary debate between organic and inorganic food which questions the origin of food and poses skepticisms on the influential food adverts which promote the intake of such foods.
Works Cited
Waelbers, Katinka, Frans Stafleu, and Frans W. A. Brom. 'Not All Animals Are Equal Differences In Moral Foundations For The Dutch Veterinary Policy On Livestock And Animals In Nature Reservations'. J Agric Environ Ethics 17.6 (2004): 497-515. Web.
