Non-vegetarianism: Ethical or Immoral?

Non-vegetarianism is nothing new and yet its corresponding debate still rages on like wildfire. It is the question of the century: should it be considered ethically acceptable or morally wrong?

Vegetarians assert that consuming animals is just out right horrible. They cannot fathom the act of mercilessly slaughtering a helpless, innocent animal in order to fill the stomachs of people. They question how non vegetarians don’t seem to find their heinous actions “irksomely PC or sentimental.” They also argue that the animals that people eat are also mammals just like us and that it is completely cruel to subject animals to inhumanity. They promote a vegetarian diet because they believe that plants do not feel pain or suffering and that not eating meat will save many innocent animals from misery. They question, “Is 'all right' to [murder] sentient creature[s] just for our gustatory pleasure?”

On the other hand, non-vegetarians think otherwise. First of all, they argue that plants do in fact feel pain. They mention that it is proven that plants can communicate and also try to defend themselves against being eaten by other species just like any other animal or human. They further go on to claim that there is indeed life in even vegetarian staples like rice, wheat, and fruits just like how there is life in meat like chicken, beef, and pork. They comically ask, “Is not eating the way?” Non-vegetarians also appeal to the scientific fact that there is life in the microbes in the air that die every time you take a breath. Now they challenge the opposing vegetarian party by questioning, “So will you stop breathing now?”

As most of you can probably see, the ethical debate of non-vegetarianism is indeed perplexing. However, this complex debate has a straightforward answer that presents itself within its name. This debate is merely an opposition of two sides that differ in person choices; therefore, this baffling debate of non-vegetarianism is simply “a matter of personal choice.”