GCRT 100 Critical Thinking: Moral Acceptability of Eating Meat

This assignment analyzes five passages addressing the moral acceptability of eating meat. Each passage presents arguments, often using the ARG (Assertion, Reason, Goal) framework, to support or refute the ethics of meat consumption. The student identifies the overall conclusion of each passage and analyzes fallacies such as red herring, appeal to emotion, and appeal to ignorance. The arguments touch upon animal sentience, religious views, societal constructs, and personal desires, with the student evaluating the validity and soundness of each argument. The assignment demonstrates an understanding of critical thinking principles by dissecting the structure and flaws within each presented argument, providing a comprehensive analysis of the complex ethical issue of eating meat.

Running head: CRITICAL THINKING
Whether eating meat is morally acceptable
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1
CRITICAL THINKING
Answer 1
Passage 1
Animals are sentient beings, which can feel pain. It is our responsibility to protect the
creatures, who are the main source of living for us. Considering the animals as the creatures
reflects the consideration of ecosystem, which maintains the balance within the environment.
Causing harm to the animals is violation for the Gods’ Creation. Animals are the God’s
creation, killing them for satisfying personal hunger is not acceptable within the society. On
the other hand, desire to eat meat is one’s personal sentiment. Issuing warning and not
expressing allowance towards this direction generates the tendency of causing self-harm or
harm to others. Based on the above principles, ARG conditions can be applied in this case as
follows:
It is true that causing unwarranted pain to any creature is not right…………………… (1)
Eating meat can cause unwarranted pain to animals ……………………………………(2)
Therefore, it is morally unethical to cause unwarranted pain to animals by killing them for
their meat………………………………………………………………………………………..
(3)
Here, the fallacy is the lack of proper evidence towards not eating meat. Analogical
explanation can be proposed. Not eating meat, as animals can feel the pain, is indication of
caring attitude towards the beings. This kind of caring and understanding nature compels the
people to adopt simplistic lifestyle by eating only vegetarian items. This decision bestows
secured position on the individuals within the society. This is because killing animals is
morally not acceptable within the society. On the contrary, the dieticians are of the view that
eating protein enriched foods like meat helps the individuals in remaining healthy and fit.
This aspect nullifies the religious sentiments attached to eating preferences and restrictions.

2
CRITICAL THINKING
Unwarranted pain reflects extent of punishment, which can be inferred on the animals.
Unwarranted pain reflects no guarantee that the animal from whom the meat is extracted
would be cured. On the contrary, these thoughts do not hold any significance, as the butchers
do not care about the animal after it is being slaughtered. This is unusual that the butchers
would care for the animals. This is because, they are there to cut the meat and earn profit by
fulfilling the needs, demands and requirements of the clients and the customers. The aspect of
punishment can be considered as red herring fallacy. This is because punishments deviate the
readers from the issue of eating meat. Punishing the butchers is an unusual proposition, which
hurts the sentiments of the community people, for whom meat is a staple food. Based on
these contradictions, application of red herring fallacy is inappropriate.
Answer 2
Passage 1
Every individual leads a life, which has been gifted by Almighty God. Like the
humans, animals are also conscious of their lives. This is evident from the act of fleeing from
dangers and falling prey to diseases. Respecting the life of the creatures is vital in terms of
respecting the fundamental rights. Consciousness towards this direction nullifies the aspect of
harm, irrespective of whether it is to the self or the others. If the case of chickens are taken,
they also have a life. They are considered as a source for food supplement, which is one of
the main requirements in order to survive. In terms of food supplement, the life of the
chickens are negated. This negation is simultaneously the negation of God’s creation. Based
on these assumptions, ARG conditions can be applied as follows:
Life needs to be treated with respect…………………………………………………. (1)
Animals have a life, which matters to them……………………………………………(2)
Therefore, animals have a life, which matters and needs to be respected………………(3)

3
CRITICAL THINKING
Slaughtering of the chickens for their meat contradicts the aspect of life and its
weightage. Undue harm of the chickens for fulfilling personal satisfaction is not morally
accepted. Along with this, society does not agree killing of animals for satisfying personal
cravings. Delving deep into the social constructs, life is the creation of God and it needs to be
respected. Killing the animals for their meat is considered a crime. However, ancient times is
the evidence, which suggests killing the animals for their meat. From the manuscripts and
painting of the ancient times, it is clearly evident that man hunted animals for their meat. At
that time, they did not consider the issue of ethics. The only concern was fulfilment of the
hunger, irrespective of the source, through which it is coming.
Slowly and gradually, the religious views started taking shape. These views formed
the social constructs for tying the individuals. Adherence to these constructs enhanced the
position of the individuals within the society. On the contrary, disobedience towards the
constructs was accounted as the execution of unethical tasks. Thinking about animals than the
self reflects an advanced thought process in case of the individuals. This advanced thought
process can be related with the behavioural theory of planned action and reasoned behaviour.
Exposing caring and understanding approach towards killing the animals can be the
psychology of the individuals in terms of ensuring the wellbeing of the individuals. The
individuals with this psychology hesitate to kill an ant. Therefore, preferring vegetarian food
items is more preferable for them in comparison to killing a whole animal.
The analogical explanation based on these assumptions is that chickens also have a
life, which is precious to them and needs to be respected. Therefore, it is far better to eat farm
animals instead of chicken. Countering this, chicken is also a farm animal, which reflects the
fallacy within the proposition. Rather, it develops a hypothetical parameter towards the
propositions and assumptions. Here, appeal to emotion fallacy can be applied. This is in

4
CRITICAL THINKING
terms of the emotions of animal lovers. For this people, projection of inadequate research on
eating meat is simply an interplay with their emotions.
Answer 3
Passage 2
If the humans give a thought to do something, they strive to achieve success in it.
They indulge in group discussions for gaining an insight into the ways and methods through
which the actions can be performed in an efficient and effective manner. Until and unless
they do not get the expected result, they do not attain the satisfaction. They go to any extent
for achieving success into the aspect, into which they have given a thought. For example, if
the individuals think of eating a meat, they would go to any extent for getting quality meat
and preparing lip-smacking dishes from it. Based on these points, the ARG conditions can be
applied, which are as follows:
Ability to eat meat is morally acceptable………………………………………………(1)
We have evolved to do something, which should be allowed…………………………(2)
Therefore, eating meat is something, which is acceptable and needs to be allowed……(3)
The fallacy in these conditions is on the aspect of moral acceptance and allowance.
This is in terms of the religious views, which prohibits the act of killing meat. Analogical
explanation can be provided with the inclusion of behavioural aspect. If the individuals think
that they have been born for eating meat, they would start believing it. Once their believe is
strong and flexible, outside forces cannot dwindle it. Countering this, cultural influences
adversely affect the thought process of the individuals. Peer influences also dwindle the
thought process of the individuals. These influences generates confusions upon the
individuals regarding the beliefs and the undertaken thought processes. The societal

5
CRITICAL THINKING
constructs also shape the beliefs and conceptions of the individuals. If the society teaches the
individuals that they have been born to eat protein enriched foods like meat, the individuals
blindly believe it. This is in the hope of enhancing their existence within the society.
If the example of old people are considered, then they are restricted from consuming
meat. This is because, they lack the strength in their teeth for tearing the meat pieces.
Children restrict their older parents from consuming meat, as they would be able to digest the
spicy items. All these restrictions generates the feeling of disinterest towards everything in
case of older people. It is at this stage that these people search for a companion, who would
understand their feelings and desire. Rationality is an important component in the behaviour
of the person, who provides companion to the old people. This is because if distrust develops
once, regaining trust is very difficult. However, the opposite persons’ interest and sentiments
needs to be taken care of. Therefore, allowance for a certain task, does not mean that it is
morally and ethically permissible. Delving deep into the allowance, there might be an
indication of unethical indulgences, which might lead to unwanted results.
In this case, appeal to ignorance fallacy is applicable. This is because the philosophers
have failed to prove that eating meat is morally acceptable. This is in terms of the harsh, rigid
and orthodox religious views.
Answer 4
Passage 2
When individuals think about something, their beliefs travel around a wide area. If
they think that “drinking milk is gross”, not a stone is left unturned by them for proving its
reality. It is unusual that the individuals would think of the source from where the milk is
coming. On the contrary, if the individual possesses a logical and scientific approach, they
would definitely express interest about gaining knowledge about the source from where the

6
CRITICAL THINKING
raw materials are coming for basic survival. In case of drinking milk, thoughts like “the milk
is from cow, then processed and then reached to me”, hovers over the individual. In this
thought process, unusual philosophical thoughts like the milk has come from some animal
other than cow, are also experienced by the individuals.
Based on the above assumptions, ARG conditions can be implemented in the
following manner:
Eating meat causes pleasure, as it is morally acceptable……………………….(1)
Something, which causes pleasure is morally permissible………………………(2)
Therefore, eating meat is morally permissible………………………………………(3)
In these propositions, the fallacy lies in the aspect of morally permissible. This is
because meat eating is not permitted in the rigid and orthodox society. Analogical
explanation can be provided through the perceptions towards eating. Considering milk as a
liquid relates to the natural consciousness towards considering the things as the way they are.
On the other hand, perceiving milk as “something other than a liquid” reflects far-
sightedness. This type of thinking reflects maturity, which ignores the restrictions towards
eating meat. The immediate outcome is expressing determination towards fulfilling the
personal desires instead of complying with the harsh and rigid societal constructs. On the
other hand, consciousness towards the deeds, which are morally acceptable by the society,
enhances the personality of the individuals. When the individuals get the permission for
eating meat, which is otherwise not permissible, they feel satisfied. This is relevant in terms
of the personal desires and sentiments of the individuals. On the contrary, if the individuals
disobey the social constructs for eating meat, it is not relevant, as the individuals encounter
unwanted situations, which aggravates the complexities in the survival.

7
CRITICAL THINKING
Doing something, which is morally permissible, provides pleasure and satisfaction to
the individuals. On the other hand, indulging in acts, which are not morally permissible also
gives pleasure to the individuals. This is because, they have emerged successful in
performing something unusual from the normal social constructs. Here, sufficiency is
reflected from the rational behaviour of the individuals.
Answer 5
Passage 2
Life for animals in the wild are difficult, as they have to adjust in wide ranging
climactic conditions. Same can be the situation in the farms, if the owners do not take proper
care of the animals. Wilderness contradicts the comfort, which is provided to the animals by
the farm owner. Caring approach of the farm owners help the animals to lead a healthier and
happier life. Happiness depends on the circumstances. On the other hand, it should also be
noted that happiness and sadness are the two sides of the coin, represented by the life in a
broader context.
Based on the above assumptions, the following ARG conditions can be applied:
Wild animals encounter harsh conditions……………………………………..(1)
Farm animals, if treated well, lead happy lives………………………………..(2)
Therefore, wild animals, if treated well, would lead happy lives……………..(3)
The fallacy lies in the third assumption, as it would not be true. Wild animals are
hunted for their meat, which contradicts the aspect of care. The act of hunting aligns with the
fact that life ending into death, can be made into a food, as the hunters kill the animals for
consuming their meat. Further analogical explanations can be explanation through the theme
of personal desires. Considering the fact of killing the animals for satisfying the personal

8
CRITICAL THINKING
desires, difficult weather conditions of the wild can be considered as morally ethical and
permissible. In this context, if the farm owner takes good care of the animals, they are
satisfied and happy. This is reflected from their activities, where suffering from less diseases
is the most evident.
Ending in death is the most evident outcome of the life, which has been gifted to the
individuals by God. Making this life into food is somewhat strange. This is because life after
death is something, which cannot be determined.
Metaanalysis
Synthesizing the proposed facts, it can be said that morally ethical and permissible
align with the social constructs. Believing in these constructs is the individual sentiments.
Neglecting these constructs and indulging in activities like eating meat is also one’s own
decision, as it is his life and he possesses full liberty to lead it on his own terms. However,
consciousness needs to be exposed towards the fact that he lives in society. In order to
maintain the societal position, the individuals need to follow the social norms. In this context,
killing animals and eating is not morally acceptable and permissible. This ignorance reflects
the matured approach of the individuals towards leading life. Rationality in this approach is
effective in terms of gaining trust, loyalty and dependence, indicative of support in case of
adopting wrong decisions.
The comparison between wild and the farm animals is striking. This is in terms of the
care, which they need. Only difference, which lies is the adaptability, which the wild animals
need to make themselves. On the contrary, zoos are there for catering to the needs of the wild
animals, however, hunting and poaching are the obstacles. In the farms, the owners take care
of the animals, feed and nurse them. This approach of the farm owners applauds them, as

9
CRITICAL THINKING
they are protecting the God’s creation. On the other hand, the people who think of killing the
chickens for satisfying their hunger are destroying God’s Creation.
On the whole, it can be said that appeal to emotion have been applied in this
assignment. This is in terms of the religious views, which restricts the individuals from
fulfilling the desires of eating meat. These religious views can be a red herring fallacy, as the
subject revolves around the moral acceptance towards eating meat.