Eating Meat and Eating People analysis

 

Human beings do not eat each other unless for cases of ritual practice, which are minimal and quite extraordinary. People instead eat animals, which is also injustice in itself, but for the sake of continuity, nothing much can be done to reverse the trend. Human beings do not eat human beings not because they do not want other people to suffer but because of a fundamental principle which requires that human interests should be preserved since they deserve to be accorded value and dignity which exists by natural means. Diamond describes how people should relate with others in terms of the means of feeding by stating that, ”We must give equal consideration to the interests to the being which is capable of having interests, and the capacity to have interests is dependent only on the capacity for suffering and enjoyment. This we evidently share with animals.” (Diamond, 2019).

Human beings are considered special beings before other living organisms. That is why; people are named and even buried when they die, contrary to the practices relating to the manner of treatment given to animals when they live or at death. The unique nature of human beings requires that all people be accorded with a name, and it is not within their interests that they are identified with such names, rather it is a natural concession that every human being is entitled to enjoy. Thus, people do not eat their pets because it is morally wrong to do so, rather, when someone chooses to live with a pet, name it and communicate with it constantly, the pet to a larger extent becomes part to the family, and should be identified as a person of the respective family. Human beings are not food to other human beings because of the special position and responsibilities assigned to them in the ecosystem (Diamond, 2019). According to Russow (2019), human beings are custodians of other species and everybody has a role to fulfill, and eating another person or species only creates a vacuum and imbalance in the ecological settings.

The ideologies pioneered by key philosophers regarding environmental ethics on predation are well researched and conform to standards of the dignity of human beings and other predators should be accorded. Human beings are not supposed to eat human beings not because doing so inconveniences others, or causes distress to them, but because morality contravenes predation on ecological custodians. Humans have an unmatched aesthetic value in the universe because of a wide range of reasons such as awesomeness, intelligence, and beauty. Thus, people must keep the beauty value of human beings, as they make the system complete and extraordinary and distinct. People must therefore not eat human meat as doing so contravenes the value of a unique species charged with the mandate to take care of nature. The intuition behind the argument from aesthetic value is correct and rightfully directed. The reasons behind the claims that species have a value match the reasons why human beings have value. Just like human beings admire the grace and beauty of species in an ecosystem, so do people admire the grace and value of humanity and the human species.

The fact that human beings do not eat the dead is not a consequence of human unwillingness to cause distress to people. It would otherwise cause distress to people if they imagined being eaten by others upon their death. Eating a person shows disrespect to the extrinsic value of humanity. Yet, human beings have a special place in the ecosystem, where species exist in an order. In the hierarchy, human beings are ranked highly and anything that abuses the system of ranking is in itself distress to the grace of humanity. The thought of eating human beings would not only cause more distress than if they were physically hurt but distorts the fundamental features of the relationship with other humans involved in not eating them (Diamond 467).

On the other hand, Diamond (2019) posits that it is a misconception to think humans should not be eaten. If someone is capable of eating a cow struck by lightning for instance, without taking into consideration the rights of the animal at its dead state, yet the same rights accorded to the cow are more or less similar to what is accorded to the human species, then it is fallacious to assume that humans should not be eaten (Diamond 468). If Singer-Regan vegetarian’s argument is anything to go by, and that eating meat is morally wrong the same way it would be for eating human flesh, then the argument lacks consistency, or that it is mere squeamishness which prevents humans from eating dead people. If it is acknowledged that a person is not something to eat, people should also not eat or mistreat animals since they also have the rights that protect them from maltreatment or possible predation. The rights guarding human and animal safety against consumption by other species, whether human or not, exist by conscience, and should be executed in equal measure.

In conclusion, people do not eat humans because they do not wish to eat or hurt them by causing distress, rather, it is because of what has originally been thought of eating human flesh. Some philosophers think that the conception that man-eating man is morally wrong is misguided and lacks direction, since, the same rights and interests associated with human beings are those preserved for animals, yet people eat animals without the fear of causing them distress. It would, therefore, mean nothing big in particular, if people began eating human flesh. Others, however, contend that human beings have a special place in the ecosystem, with special interests and roles to name and take care of other species, making them superior in ranking and that they must not be predated upon. Besides, it has been the norm over time that human flesh should not be consumed.

---

 

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GRADE VALLEY TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

---

Eating Meat and Eating People analysis essay Brook Writers.