Please review the grammar, form, and structure of this essay for me. It's not finalized and I'm open for any advice or criticism-- thanks!
Webster's definition of vegetarianism, not to be confused with veganism, is "the principle or practice of excluding all meat and fish." There are many reasons someone may choose to follow such a diet, whether it may be sympathy for animals, or their own medical conditions. Regardless, the reasons someone may choose to become a vegetarian, and the lengths someone may go to to follow vegetarianism, I feel, are personal, since consuming meat is not morally wrong.
As humans, we have the intelligence to decide for ourselves whether or not eating meat is worth the value of the animal's life and death, and the issue of the morality of vegetarianism lies within where we place an animal's value in comparison to our own, as we both are living organisms. However, in nature, animals consume other animals, or sometimes their own kind, for their benefit. Herbivores consume plants, which are living organisms, as well, but we value, say, a bundle of brocolli, much less than we would value a dog, while both are living organisms. As humans, we often misinterpret ourselves as seperate from nature because of our intelligence, but we should be doing just the opposite, and acknowledging ourselves as a part of nature more because we have the intelligence to do so. Moreover, this misconception leads us to believe we are above or apart from eating other animals, which is so relevant to nature.
It may be argued that, as humans, we should take advantage of our intelligence and modern biotechnological advancements and use these meat-alternatives to intake nutrients, primarily found in meat, that would otherwise be lost in a vegetarian diet, and that it is immoral for us to continue farming animals when these alternatives are available and continuously being improved. However, it is impractical to believe there are enough soy, and other meat-alternative, resources to be mass produced as animals now are. Second, it is also impractical as the processing and production of meat-alternatives are significantly more expensive than the farming and production of animals, and it may be considered unfair to remove a cheaper alternative for those who cannot afford to purchase meat-alternatives.
While I believe it is morally permissible to eat meat, the way in which it is produced (i.e mass production, contaminated facilities, farming abuse, over-consumed) is disrespectful not only toward animals but towards ourselves, and that animals production is being done in a wrong enough manner to become a vegetarian
Also, a lot of my thoughts are scrambled and I know this essay doesn't flow cohesively, but I feel if I just get some back-up advice I can further this much more.
Thanks in advance for any advice and comments ;')
Webster's definition of vegetarianism, not to be confused with veganism, is "the principle or practice of excluding all meat and fish." There are many reasons someone may choose to follow such a diet, whether it may be sympathy for animals, or their own medical conditions. Regardless, the reasons someone may choose to become a vegetarian, and the lengths someone may go to to follow vegetarianism, I feel, are personal, since consuming meat is not morally wrong.
As humans, we have the intelligence to decide for ourselves whether or not eating meat is worth the value of the animal's life and death, and the issue of the morality of vegetarianism lies within where we place an animal's value in comparison to our own, as we both are living organisms. However, in nature, animals consume other animals, or sometimes their own kind, for their benefit. Herbivores consume plants, which are living organisms, as well, but we value, say, a bundle of brocolli, much less than we would value a dog, while both are living organisms. As humans, we often misinterpret ourselves as seperate from nature because of our intelligence, but we should be doing just the opposite, and acknowledging ourselves as a part of nature more because we have the intelligence to do so. Moreover, this misconception leads us to believe we are above or apart from eating other animals, which is so relevant to nature.
It may be argued that, as humans, we should take advantage of our intelligence and modern biotechnological advancements and use these meat-alternatives to intake nutrients, primarily found in meat, that would otherwise be lost in a vegetarian diet, and that it is immoral for us to continue farming animals when these alternatives are available and continuously being improved. However, it is impractical to believe there are enough soy, and other meat-alternative, resources to be mass produced as animals now are. Second, it is also impractical as the processing and production of meat-alternatives are significantly more expensive than the farming and production of animals, and it may be considered unfair to remove a cheaper alternative for those who cannot afford to purchase meat-alternatives.
While I believe it is morally permissible to eat meat, the way in which it is produced (i.e mass production, contaminated facilities, farming abuse, over-consumed) is disrespectful not only toward animals but towards ourselves, and that animals production is being done in a wrong enough manner to become a vegetarian
Also, a lot of my thoughts are scrambled and I know this essay doesn't flow cohesively, but I feel if I just get some back-up advice I can further this much more.
Thanks in advance for any advice and comments ;')