Topics in Philosophy are boundless. It could deal with politics, existence of beings, the human soul, metaphysics, and much more. However, there is one unique philosophical thought which relates to nature; and this is all about vegetarianism. The known proponent of this naturalist’s view was James Rachels. The tenets of his argument started out on this major premise, that it is not correct to induce pain unless there is a justifiable reason for doing so (Rachels, 2004, p. 70). With such statement, there are induced sufferings which can be considered morally correct because they are justified by the fact that they are needed for very important reasons, like when someone goes to the dentist for tooth extraction. Somehow it may cause pain, but it is justified because such extraction is needed so that the tooth will not cause further pain and besides it is consented to. Rachels’ minor premise on vegetarianism is anchored on the statement that “in modern meat production business, animals are made to suffer terribly” (Rachel, 2004, p. 71). This premise, however, generated many oppositions claiming that animal meat is needed for human nourishment and so the killing of animals is morally justified. Besides, many of them eat meat as meal menu variant since it tastes good. To contradict this claim of the oppositionists, Rachels came out with another minor premise that the good taste of the meat does not justify the killing of animals. Between its taste and the life of the animals, the latter weighs more than mere savor. Hence, he recommended that people should eat vegetables, instead; and he addressed this to people in the modern society. For him, killing animals by hunting for food in old-fashioned communities, like in the jungle, is more likely to be justified than the slaughtering of animals in the modern, highly urbanized cities where there are other plenty of food to eat. The argument of Rachels admits only of a situation where the killing of animals, or even just the inducing of pain on them can be considered morally upright if such slaughter or inducement is done for a reasonable cause; otherwise, it will be morally wrong.
References
Sapontzis, S. F. (2004). Food for thought: The debate over eating meat. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 70-80.
