Rogerian Argument Vegetarianism
They claim that the using animals as a source of food are threatening since it involves the killing of the animals. They argue that it is unethical and cruel to kill the animals and people should use the alternative sources of food such as non-animal food sources which are readily available (Regan, Tom). On the other hand, the opponents of the vegetarianism claim that using meat as a source of food is healthful. They say that meat consumption is humane and consuming vegetables has similar effects to the environment as meat consumption. They even say that people have been consuming and enjoying meat since the ancient days and therefore meat should not be restricted in the society. Meat comprises high levels of protein content and thus, it is the main cause of the kidney problems (Gogri, Charmi).
The human body is designed to support the vegetarian diet. The human body lacks special features such as carnivorous teeth and long mouth which characterize the animals which are supposed to consume meat. The human beings have short teeth which are adapted for chewing vegetables. Also, human beings have long intestines and the liver is not capable of detoxifying the excess vitamins. vegetables reduce the chances of suffering from heart diseases, hypertension and stroke. The vegetarians usually have a longer lifespan than the meat eaters. This is because the man-eaters have a high probability of suffering from cancer and heart disease. The opponents of the vegetarianism claim that consumption of meat is not unethical or cruel but is just normal phenomena of the life cycle.
Vegetarians usually show a lot of concern to the animal life more than the plant life. The wealthier countries usually consume meat but do not suffer hunger. The hunger in the society depends on the economic growth and distribution of food. The consumption of meat has no great effect on the deforestation. Despite the increased consumption of meat, the percentage of forest remains steady. Advancement in technology ensures that the animals do not suffer during slaughter. Even if in their arguments they differ a lot, the two groups do agree that both plants and animals should be taken care of. The difference in opinion the two groups seems irreconcilable. This is because the two groups have strong points two justify their stand.
Despite each side having a firm stand, they should both recognize that both plants and animals need to be protected. Instead of wasting too much time on the discussions, they should first set measures to protect the environment and ensure both the plants and animals are safe (Zeis, John). Even though the two groups differ in many ways, they do agree that there is need to protect and conserve the environment. To solve the conflict the two groups should recognize that both plants and animals should be treated with care. They can begin solving the conflict by accepting the impacts of their choices on plants and animals. They should not be afraid or stubborn to see the reality. This would involve choosing what is healthy to them and beneficial to both plants and animals.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop