Category: English 122

9/24/2018

https://une1-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/jdiaz8_une_edu/EYQgOi5igOlBur5dEFPbdN4BwEk-miYXNUFH5-nY1FpZ4A?e=Ly0nch

Diaz 1

Jeremy Diaz

Professor Eric Drown

English 122

21 September 2018

A New Perspective

Peter Singer is a philosopher who strongly believes that killing animals for our own pleasures is severely immoral. He pushes the question on whether eating meat is ethical or not. Michael Pollan is a writer who begins to question Singers views as well as his own. In “An Animals Place” as a reader I tried to find my opinion on the topic at hand. Singer states “eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals and killing animals for sports: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view ‘speciesism’.” This claim made Pollan think very hard about how animals as treated and it did the same to me as well.

Pollan encounters Singer’s idea of speciesism while eating a plate of steak. He refers to this action as some sort of abomination. “Preposterous as it might seem, to supporters of animal rights, what I was doing was tantamount to reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” on a plantation in the Deep South in 1852.” Pollan’s point of view on speciesism was that it was ridiculous, but he didn’t just stop after reading Singer’s words even. Even though Pollan was filled with skepticism he decided to investigate Singers view as well as many others.

Pollan says that this idea that speciesism is something so bad that it can be compared to racism is something he has only heard in jokes. Singers response to Pollan’s comment would be to say that this has to do with our morals. Humans know they hold a higher intelligence than other species and we use that as a way of leverage to take advantage of them. Pollan’s initial argument was “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is an argument he took from Benjamin Franklin. Pollan quickly realized

 

Diaz 2

that he would need a stronger argument after animal rightists argued back “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order. Murder and rape are natural, too.” This lead Singer’s and Pollan’s views to clash. At this point I wasn’t convinced by Singer and his views, but he did have me questioning my own morals. I thought to myself am I really a bad person for eating meat?

Pollan begins to contemplate the idea of letting animals that are in captivity into the wild. He quickly advocates that life would be worse for animals if they were let go into the wild. Pollan knows that domesticated animals can’t survive on their own because all they know is being in captivity. I remember when I was younger I used to watch the movie “Free Willy.” After they were done filming the movies they let the whale from the movie out into the ocean to be free. It turns out that the whale died because it was dependent on being fed and forgot how to survive on its own. Singer still claims that all animals are entitled to freedom regardless if they are bound to die. “Singer retorts. ‘the life of freedom is preferred’.” In this situation animal rightist agree with Singer because this would be natural order. Even if they were to go extinct that would be better than them being abused in captivity. “for if pigs don’t exist, they can’t be wronged.” Pollan insists that while animal suffering is not good, humans should be priority to everything else. “The suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first!” He introduces Kant to talk on this theory by saying “the human being is the only moral animal, the only one even capable of entertaining a concept of “rights”.” Kant reminds us of our responsibility as a human to strive for equality.

In his argument Singer is trying to urge his readers to strongly consider changing their view on meat eating and use of animals for clothes and pleasure. Pollan strongly advocates that humans have two options. Pollan claims “You look away and keep eating animals not knowing if

 

Diaz 3

they lived a full life or you stop eating animals all together.” He decides that if you don’t do either of these then you must determine whether the animal you’re eating has endured “a life of suffering.” By life of suffering this means the animals couldn’t do things normal animals co uld. For example, if they’re kept in a cage all day chances are they didn’t get a chance to stretch and move around as Singer would say they need to. Pollan introduces Descartes to bring in a new perspective to the conversation. Descartes introduces a new topic saying, “animals don’t feel pain because they lack a soul.” Pollan himself writes, “human pain differs from animal pain.” My opinion on this was that if an animal is experiencing pain they will make some type of noise or show something physically for humans to understand what they’re feeling. On the other hand, if they’re not given a chance to do so because their neck is chopped off or something that kills them instantly how are we to know if they experience pain for that one second?

Pollan realizes that most of the suffering for animals takes place on a farm. Whether it be chickens squished up in a coop or a pig that is confined to one area. “From everything I’ve read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste.” Pollan doesn’t argue against the fact that this is wrong. In fact, he is so persuaded by the arguments that are being made that he pretty much sounds like an animal rightist at one point. But this doesn’t stop Pollan, instead he continues to delve deeper into the conversation.

In his book Dominion, Matthew Scully maintains Singer’s argument that eating animals is bad. He takes it further though by saying “factory farms are our own worst nightmare.” He also says, “while God did give man “dominion” over animals, he also admonished us to show them mercy.” I can agree with this point because I feel no living thing deserves to suffer if there is something that can be done about it. Scully’s comments lead Polland to look for a new place to find meat to eat that didn’t follow Singer’s points of why eating animals is inhumane.

 

Diaz 4

Pollan decided to visit the Polyface farm ran by Joel Salatin. According to Pollan on this farm “chickens live like chickens, cows live like cows, pigs live like pigs.” In other words, they live a life that Singer described as necessary for them. On this farm they can run around and be normal for all their life and once their time comes to be killed it doesn’t seem as bad as it would’ve if they were cooped up in cages. Salatin was asked by Pollan “how he brings himself to kill a chicken.” According to Salatin “animals are not created in God’s image, so when they die, they just die.” He basically believes that animals don’t feel wronged when they are sacrificed to give us food. Instead that is kind of what they are made to do. At the same time, Salatin agrees with Singer’s point that these animals must be treated with respect and allowed to live free as if they were in the wild. That’s the whole point of his Polyface farm. This farm is so powerful that it allowed a man who was a vegetarian for 16 years to eat meat again. This man said the only way he would eat meat was if he was to kill the animal himself. When killing the bird, the man states “the animal did not look at him accusingly.” Is this how meat eating should be handled?

Pollan thinks this is the proper way to go about eating meat. He agrees to never eat meat again unless it’s from a farm like the Polyface. He comes to believe that animals do deserve respect and they must be able to live a full life before they are killed. He sends this argument to Singer and he responds. Singer believes that while this is a better alternative there’s still no way to justify this act. In other words, Singer wants to make sure these animals are ready to be put to rest before the act takes place. Currently there is no way to know if these animals accept their fate. What we can take away from this is that both Singer and Pollan learned something from one another but there is still more to be discussed.

 

 

 

Diaz 5

What I learned from all this was some farms treat animals very cruel. I wasn’t aware of how bad these animals were treated daily. I’ve concluded that there needs to be a better

process in the meat industry. Whether it be that all farms are ran like Joel Salatin’s PolyFace Farm or they find another alternative. Either way these animals should not suffer because that is not what they were made to do, and I believe that Singer and Pollan would agree with this. I think Singers remarks on the situation is a true eye opener and I’d suggest that everyone read it regardless of how you feel about animals in general. If you do so I promise it will make you look at eating animals different.

9/21/2018

People say there are three sides to every argument. There’re the two sides arguing and then there’s the truth. The question at hand is whether eating meat is ethical or not. In “An Animals Place” as a reader I tried to find my opinion on the topic at hand. The two sides are Singer and Pollan. Singer states “eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals and killing animals for sports: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view ‘speciesism’.”

Pollan comes across this while eating a plate of steak. He refers to this action as some sort of abomination. “Preposterous as it might seem, to supporters of animal rights, what I was doing was tantamount to reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” on a plantation in the Deep South in 1852.” Pollan’s point of view on speciesism was that it was ridiculous, but he didn’t just stop after reading Singer’s words. Instead he decided to investigate it even more.

Pollan says that this idea that speciesism is something so bad that it can be compared to racism is something he has only heard in jokes. Singer further elaborates on his viewpoint to say that this has to do with our morals. Humans know they hold a higher intelligence than other species and we use that as a way of leverage to take advantage of them. Pollan’s initial argument was “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is an argument he took from Benjamin Franklin. Pollan quickly realized that he would need a stronger argument after animal rightists argued back “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order. Murder and rape are natural, too.” This lead Singer’s and Pollan’s views to go clash.

Pollan begins to contemplate the idea of letting animals in captivity to the wild. He quickly advocates that life would be worse for animals if they were let go into the wild. Pollan knows that domesticated animals can’t survive on their own because all they know is being in captivity. Singer claims that all animals are entitled to freedom. “Singer retorts. ‘the life of freedom is preferred’.” In this situation animal rightist agree with Singer because this would be natural order. Even if they were to go extinct that would be better than them being abused in captivity. “for if pigs don’t exist, they can’t be wronged.” Pollan insists that while animal suffering is not good, humans should be priority to everything else. “The suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first!” Kant rejects this theory by saying “the human being is the only moral animal, the only one even capable of entertaining a concept of “rights”.” Kant reminds us of our responsibility as a human to strive for equality.

In his argument Singer is trying to urge his readers to strongly consider changing their mind. Pollan strongly advocates that humans have two options you look away and keep eating animals not knowing if they lived a full life or you stop eating animals all together. Pollan decides that if you don’t do either of these then you must determine whether the animal you’re eating has endured “a life of suffering.” By life of suffering this means the animals couldn’t do things normal animals could. For example, if they’re kept in a cage all day chances are they didn’t get a chance to stretch and move around as Singer would say they need to. Pollan introduces Descartes to bring in a new perspective to the conversation. Descartes introduces a new topic saying, “animals don’t feel pain because they lack a soul.” Pollan himself writes, “human pain differs from animal pain.” My opinion on this was that if an animal is experiencing pain they will make some type of noise or show something physically for humans to understand what they’re feeling. On the other hand, if they’re not given a chance to do so because their neck is chopped off or something that kills them instantly how are we to know if they experience pain for that one second?

Pollan realizes that most of the suffering for animals takes place on a farm. Whether it be chickens squished up in a coop or a pig that is confined to one area. “From everything I’ve read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste. Pollan doesn’t argue against the fact that this is wrong. In fact, he is so persuaded by the arguments that are being made that he pretty much sounds like an animal rightist at one point. But this doesn’t stop Pollan, instead he still continues to delve deeper into the conversation.

In his book Dominion, Matthew Scully maintains Singer’s argument that eating animals is bad. He takes it further though by saying “factory farms are our own worst nightmare.” He also says, “while God did give man “dominion” over animals, he also admonished us to show them mercy.” This lead Polland to look for a new place to find meat to eat that didn’t follow Singer’s points of why eating animals is inhumane.

Pollan decided to visit the Polyface farm ran by Joel Salatin. According to Pollan on this farm “chickens live like chickens, cows live like cows, pigs live like pigs.” In other words, they live a life that Singer described. On this farm they can run around and be normal for all their life and once their time comes to be killed it doesn’t seem as bad as it would’ve if they were cooped up in cages. Salatin was asked by Pollan “how he brings himself to kill a chicken.” According to Salatin “animals are not created in God’s image, so when they die, they just die.” He basically believes that animals don’t feel wronged when they are sacrificed to give us food. Instead that is kind of what they are made to do. At the same time, Salatin agrees with Singer’s point that these animals must be treated with respect. That’s the whole point of his Polyface farm. This farm is so powerful that it allowed a man who was a vegetarian for 16 years to eat meat again. This man said the only way he would eat meat was if he was to kill the animal himself. When killing the bird, the man states “the animal did not look at him accusingly.” Is this how meat eating should be handled?

Pollan thinks this is the proper way to go about eating meat. He agrees to never eat meat again unless it’s from a farm like the Polyface. He comes to believe that animals do deserve respect and they must be able to live a full life before they are killed. He sends this argument to Singer and he responds. Singer believes that while this is a better alternative there’s still no way to justify this act. In other words, Singer wants to make sure these animals are ready to be put to rest before the act takes place. Currently there is no way to know if these animals accept their fate. What we can take away from this is that both Singer and Pollan learned something from one another and were able to take this endless conversation a step forward.

9/19/2018

People say there are three sides to every argument. There’re the two sides arguing and then there’s the truth. The question at hand is whether eating meat is ethical or not. In “An Animals Place” as a reader I tried to find my opinion on the topic at hand. The two sides are Singer and Pollan. Singer states “eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals and killing animals for sports: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view “speciesism”.” Singer says that this idea of speciesism is something so bad that it can be compared to racism. He further elaborates on the subject to say that this has to do with our morals. Humans know they hold a higher intelligence than other species and we use that as a way of leverage to take advantage of them. Pollan’s point of view on speciesism was that it was ridiculous, but he didn’t just stop after reading Singer’s words. Instead he decided to investigate it even more. He first tried to argue it with “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is an argument he took from Benjamin Franklin. Pollan quickly realized that he would need a stronger argument after animal rightists argued back “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order. Murder and rape are natural, too.” This lead Singer’s and Pollan’s views to go back and forth.

Pollan then goes on to suggest another solution to the problem at hand. Pollan speculates if life would be better for animals if they were let go into the wild. He then realizes that domesticated animals can’t survive on their own because all they know is being in captivity. Singer also argues that regardless of where they were born, in captivity or in the wild, that animals must exercise, stretch their limbs and move around. Pollan insists that while animal suffering is not good, humans should be priority to everything else. “The suffering of animals is a legitimate problem, but the world is full of problems, and surely human problems must come first!” Kant rejects this theory by saying “the human being is the only moral animal, the only one even capable of entertaining a concept of “rights”.” Kant reminds us of our responsibility as a human to strive for equality.

This leads us to Singer’s final argument. He strongly advocates that humans have two options you look away and keep eating animals not knowing if they lived a full life or you stop eating animals all together. In this Singer is trying to urge his readers to strongly consider changing their mind. Polland decides that if you don’t do either of these then you must determine whether the animal you’re eating has endured “a life of suffering.” By life of suffering this means the animals couldn’t do things normal animals could. For example, if they’re kept in a cage all day chances are they didn’t get a chance to stretch and move around as Singer would say they need to. Descartes introduces a new topic saying, “animals don’t feel pain because they lack a soul.” Pollan himself writes, “human pain differs from animal pain.” My opinion on this was that if an animal is experiencing pain they will make some type of noise or show something physically for humans to understand what they’re feeling. On the other hand, if they’re not given a chance to do so because their neck is chop off or something that kills them instantly how are we to know if they experience pain for that one second?

Pollan realizes that most of the suffering for animals takes place on a farm. Whether it be chickens squished up in a coop or a pig that is confined to one area. “From everything I’ve read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste. Pollan doesn’t argue against the fact that this is wrong. In fact, he is so persuaded by the arguments that are being made that he pretty much sounds like an animal rightist at one point. But this doesn’t stop Pollan, instead he still continues to delve deeper into the conversation.

In his book Dominion, Matthew Scully maintains Singer’s argument that eating animals is bad. He takes it further though by saying “factory farms are our own worst nightmare.” He also says, “while God did give man “dominion” over animals, he also admonished us to show them mercy.” This lead Polland to look for a new place to find meat to eat that didn’t follow Singer’s points of why eating animals is inhumane.

Pollan decided to visit the Polyface farm ran by Joel Salatin. According to Pollan on this farm “chickens live like chickens, cows live like cows, pigs live like pigs.” In other words, they live a life that Singer described. On this farm they can run around and be normal for all their life and once their time comes to be killed it doesn’t seem as bad as it would’ve if they were cooped up in cages. Salatin was asked by Pollan “how he brings himself to kill a chicken.” According to Salatin “animals are not created in God’s image, so when they die, they just die.” He basically believes that animals don’t feel wronged when they are sacrificed to give us food. Instead that is kind of what they are made to do. At the same time, Salatin agrees with Singer’s point that these animals must be treated with respect. That’s the whole point of his Polyface farm. This farm is so powerful that it allowed a man who was a vegetarian for 16 years to eat meat again. This man said the only way he would eat meat was if he was to kill the animal himself. When killing the bird, the man states “the animal did not look at him accusingly.” Is this how meat eating should be handled?

Pollan thinks this is the proper way to go about eating meat. He agrees to never eat meat again unless it’s from a farm like the Polyface. He comes to believe that animals do deserve respect and they must be able to live a full life before they are killed. He sends this argument to Singer and he responds. Singer believes that while this is a better alternative there’s still no way to justify this act. In other words, Singer wants to make sure these animals are ready to be put to rest before the act takes place. Currently there is no way to know if these animals accept their fate. What we can take away from this is that both Singer and Pollan learned something from one another and were able to take this endless conversation a step forward.

9/17/2018

The conversation between Peter Singer and Pollan is an interesting one that reached no end. Throughout this conversation multiple points were brought up that persuaded both sides to approach the situation differently. What led to this was Pollan trying to understand and get a grasp of Singers points. Singer states “eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals and killing animals for sports: all these practices, so resolutely normal to us, will be seen as the barbarities they are, and we will come to view “speciesism”.” Singer says that this idea of speciesism is something so bad that it can be compared to racism. He further elaborates on the subject to say that this has to do with our morals. Humans know they hold a higher intelligence than other species and we use that as a way of leverage to take advantage of them. Pollan’s point of view on speciesism was that it was ridiculous, but he didn’t just stop after reading Singer’s words. Instead he decided to investigate it even more. He first tried to argue it with “Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?” This is an argument he took from Benjamin Franklin. Pollan quickly realized that he would need a stronger argument after animal rightists argued back “do you really want to base your morality on the natural order. Murder and rape are natural, too.” This lead Singer’s and Pollan’s views to go back and forth.

Pollan then goes on to suggest another solution to the problem at hand. He wonders if life would be better for animals if they were let go into the wild. He then realizes that domesticated animals can’t survive on their own because all they know is being in captivity. Singer also argues that regardless of where they were born, in captivity or in the wild, that animals must exercise, stretch their limbs and move around. Singer’s argument leaves a final point that humans have two options you look away and keep eating animals not knowing if they lived a full life or you stop eating animals all together. Polland decides that if you don’t do either of these then you must determine whether the animal you’re eating has endured “a life of suffering.” By life of suffering this means the animals couldn’t do things normal animals could. For example, if they’re kept in a cage all day chances are they didn’t get a chance to stretch and move around as Singer would say they need to. Descartes introduces a new topic saying, “animals don’t feel pain because they lack a soul.” Pollan himself writes, “human pain differs from animal pain.” My opinion on this was that if an animal is experiencing pain they will make some type of noise or show something physically for humans to understand what they’re feeling. On the other hand, if they’re not given a chance to do so because their neck is chop off or something that kills them instantly how are we to know if they experience pain for that one second?

In his book Dominion, Matthew Scully maintains Singer’s argument that eating animals is bad. He takes it further though by saying “factory farms are our own worst nightmare.” He also says, “while God did give man “dominion” over animals, he also admonished us to show them mercy.” This lead Polland to look for a new place to find meat to eat that didn’t follow Singer’s points of why eating animals is inhumane.

Pollan decided to visit the Polyface farm ran by Joel Salatin. According to Pollan on this farm “chickens live like chickens, cows live like cows, pigs live like pigs.” In other words, they live a life that Singer described. On this farm they can run around and be normal for all their life and once their time comes to be killed it doesn’t seem as bad as it would’ve if they were cooped up in cages. Salatin was asked by Pollan “how he brings himself to kill a chicken.” According to Salatin “animals are not created in God’s image, so when they die, they just die.” He basically believes that animals don’t feel wronged when they are sacrificed to give us food. Instead that is kind of what they are made to do. At the same time, Salatin agrees with Singer’s point that these animals must be treated with respect. That’s the whole point of his Polyface farm. This farm is so powerful that it allowed a man who was a vegetarian for 16 years to eat meat again. This man said the only way he would eat meat was if he was to kill the animal himself. When killing the bird, the man states “the animal did not look at him accusingly.” Is this how meat eating should be handled?

Pollan thinks this is the proper way to go about eating meat. He agrees to never eat meat again unless it’s from a farm like the Polyface. He comes to believe that animals do deserve respect and they must be able to live a full life before they are killed. He sends this argument to Singer and he responds. Singer believes that while this is a better alternative there’s still no way to justify this act. In other words, Singer wants to make sure these animals are ready to be put to rest before the act takes place. Currently there is no way to know if these animals accept their fate. What we can take away from this is that both Singer and Pollan learned something from one another and were able to take this endless conversation a step forward.

949 words

The guest speaker told me a lot of useful information not only about the class but about college in general. The first thing Wes told us was to try our best. He told us that he didn’t take the first month of college as seriously as he should’ve. He wasn’t doing his homework and struggled balance his work with sports. Then he mentioned that Eric was very understanding. If someone has a conflict or is swamped with work we can always ask for an extension or some help as long as it’s within reasonable time. Another thing that Wes mentioned was that we shouldn’t slack on our work. If we have a free slot in between classes of an hour or two then we should try to get some work done. This will help you so you can just shower and go to bed after practice instead of having hours of homework. Wes said this will help us get to bed at a decent time instead of going to bed at 2 in the morning. These are the things that I will take to heart since I am also a student athlete. Wes said that there will be a couple of papers as well. He said they’re going to suck but you will help us through them during class. He also mentioned that we should stay up to date with our portfolio or we will lose points. One thing that Wes mentioned that surprised me was that you want us to try our best even if it’s not good. As long as full effort is shown then the work will be accepted. This surprised me because I had multiple classes where I’ve put hours upon hours of work and the teacher would still give me a bad grade or fail me. Overall Wes made me excited for this class in the future and I’m curious to see what will come our way.

9-10 this is the notes for endless conversation and lets write on 9/10

Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!