Can one avoid complicity in causing/encouraging animal slaughter while continuing to purchase and consume animal meat products? If not, can one simply avoid such complicity just by discontinuing to purchase and consume animal meat products?
I chose this question because this is an actual real world concern for a lot of people, including myself. For the past few decades, an increasing number of people are starting to pay more attention towards animal slaughter and arguing whether it is still acceptable for humans to continue to do so. People even changed their diet to become fully vegetarian solely because of how cruel and inhumane the animals were treated before getting slaughtered. However, not everyone can just give up their usual diet, especially in front of a plate of delicious steak. Then how can one avoid the guilt and complicity in causing/encouraging animal slaughter while continuing to consume animal products for the essential nutrients and pure pleasure?
I believe by attempting to answer this question in my paper, I might be able to find a middle ground where one can live ethically responsible lives while continuing to consume meat products. If not, I would like to discuss whether changing my diet and becoming full vegetarian OR only eating certified humanely raised animal meats will actually let one avoid the complicity. To be more specific, it’s complicity such as farming animals in inhumane condition, or simply raising animals in captivity for slaughter etc.
I plan to begin my paper with an introductory paragraph that includes a thesis statement (not decided yet). The thesis statement will either be (1) yes, one can avoid the complicity of animal slaughtering while continuing to consume animal products by doing…, or (2) no, there is no way one can avoid such complicity if they continue to consume animal products, and this is because….
I will start off by discussing views and arguments of those who support animal rights and are against inhumane animal slaughter. For this discussion, I will reference papers written by philosophers such as Peter Singer and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who are both supporters of animal rights. I will explain why the complicity exists and how continuing to purchase and consume animal products makes us partly responsible for how inhumanely those animals are treated.
I will then discuss the possible options for us to avoid such complicity while continuing to purchase and consume animal products. Options such as but not limited: (!) only purchasing meat from certified humanely raised animal farms, (2) only eating wild animals that are not raised in a slaughterhouse. (3) raising or hunting them oneself etc. For each option, I will analyze their strengths and weaknesses in order to test their effectiveness on being a possible solution to my question. Nefsky’s solution on “inefficacy problem” might be a good counter for the above options.
After considering options that one can possibly avoid complicity while continuing to consume meat products, I will discuss the option of becoming a full vegetarian and stop purchasing and consuming meat products in general. In this part, I will analyze and explain how effective this option is, while considering the collective responsibility our society shares as a whole. For example, if the state continues to authorize animal slaughter and even use it as part of a trade, can a citizen of such state avoid the complicity?
If my thesis statement does offer a solution on how one can avoid such complicity, then I will discuss it here. I will likely test my proposed solution against the work of Nefsky, Isaacs, and other philosophers whose idea might be against my proposition. If my thesis statement does not propose a solution, I will discuss why it is impossible for me to propose one.
Finally, I will conclude my paper by organizing all the discussions and explanations that I believe proves my thesis statement correct.
Possible References (but not limited to):
Ralph Waldo Emerson