Question

When it comes to diet, let's face if: most of you are probably not going to become animal rights activists and stop eating meat because you read Peter Singer's excerpt on PETA's website. My question to you is: why not? What's wrong with his basic argument, that animals suffer, that their suffering is greater than the suffering you would endure if you stopped eating meat, and that therefore, according to utilitarianism, you ought to stop eating meat?

Answer 1

If we eat only vegetarian food then it will create the large-scale scarcity of food because in the absence of food supply as per demand rate of vegetables will rise.In many middle eastern and western countries are mostly dependant on non-vegetarian food due to their climate and geographic location, and many small nations do not have space and resources to grow every crop for them.importing every crop will create the extra burden on their economy.

Hence, according to utilitarianism, it is necessary to eat non-veg in order to fulfil the demand for food of society.

Non-veg food is the good and cheap source of protein, vitamins and minerals.Therefore labour, workers and poor class can afford it.

Now, If we look this issue with another view that it is a biologically proven fact that humans are omnivores, therefore, they should eat both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

I am not in the support of unethical, immoral, and cruel hunting of wildlife animal for food and other purposes like for bush meat,whale hunting,killing of rhinos and elephants for their horns and tusks.just trying to say that for the sake of humanity non-veg both veg and non-veg food is equally important and necessary.