Can We Be Environmentalists and Eat Meat?

Student One Response 

It is true from your argument that Virgil's economic pressure and the family background were the primary reasons that instilled in him the courage to work at the Tyson CAFO as a chicken killer. However, you are not equally majoring on the fact that despite that, he could no longer hold his breath, killing these innocent animals. You have not also mentioned the fact that after quitting, Virgil spent most of his time trying to expose the rot within Tyson’s CAFO. You ought to have equally mentioned such facts as they indicate Virgil’s morality standard. In your assessment of whether eating a meet from an animal, a person cannot kill or witness, the killing process is resounding. It is immoral in this case to act innocently but consume the end product. It would also make no sense to campaign against killing animals, yet eating them is enjoyable. 

Student four Response 

You pose a good question on whether letting the animals die naturally, and eating them would still be immoral. From your answer, it is evident that you care about the idea. I think you right in this case. I think eating animals should not constitute the problem in his case, but the cruelty with which people treat these animals. For instance, a vegetarian in an area where there is limited vegetation. If the vegetarian care for the vegetation which constitutes planting them and watering them to nurture them, eating them would not be the main issue. However, mass destruction with limited replacement would constitute an immoral act. Morality, in this case, should be the intent. The morality of intent justifies the reason as to why massive chicken rearing and killing them should be immoral. The scientific knowledge of animals keeping and breeding is based on the intent to kill them in mass for food, which is wrong intent, thus immoral.