Where I stand after this class

I am morally obliged to be a vegetarian because I believe that nonhumans are fully deserving of personhood status. Nonhumans satisfy the subject of a life criterion as proposed by Tom Regan, which states that those beings who are conscious of themselves (they feel, perceive, and have an interest in the state of their welfare) have inherent value and therefore must be treated with respect. Cutting short the lives of these nonhuman persons is morally and ethically wrong because it violates their intrinsic value and asserts that human interests are more important than nonhuman interests in the unnecessary act of killing for food.

Continuing to consume the flesh of nonhumans, even if the nonhuman does not die at the hands of the person eating it, does not constitute a morality hall pass. Purchasing meat promotes factory farming in which literally millions of nonhumans are murdered slaughtered each year. It is not necessary for a happy and healthy human life to violate the rights of nonhumans. The only argument in favor of meat consumption in modern America is that it tastes good. Pleasure is not enough to constitute moral rightness. A vegetarian diet promotes good health and allows nonhumans to live their lives in happiness alongside humans.

It is crucial that humans begin to eradicate their speciesist mentality and stop relying on anthropomorphic arguments in favor of vegetarianism. As a vegetarian, I support valuing nonhumans because we share this planet with them. As sentient beings, they are deserving of our consideration and as moral patients we owe them our compassion. Nonhumans need not be human to deserve our humanity.

Do you feel that the vegetarians in the class entered the course and looked at the various arguments as objectively as the meat eaters?