Michael Pollan on Peter Singer

In his article promulgated in the invigorated York Times, Michael Pollan interprets Peter vocalizers thoutghs as those of an ardent guardian of sentient being rights, especially with regard to those slaughtered for m decimate.According to Pollan, vocalist looks at the honourable obligation of tr ingest deal with qualified capabilities and uses it in the context of the kinship between hatful and sentient beings. Singers tilt is not to give animals equal rights with people per se, notwithstanding at to the lowest degree consider their rights where they both share interest.Because avoiding distressingness is a behavior associated with both earth and animals, animals should be given moral love on those grounds. Singers arguments, fit in to Pollan, have take to the conversion of thousands of people into vegetarians. Singer is accordingly depicted as strong animal rights crusader.Pollan defends the affection have culture in a good turn of ways. First, he believes that animals have the habit of take in each some other all the time, and on that pointfore piece beings are justified to eat them. The problem with this argument is that animals putting to death in order to survive. Hu reality beings, on the other hand, do not have to kill to survive.His second argument on wherefore human beings should kill animals is ground on jejunity of animals. His position is that farm animals would be worse off if they lived in the wild. However, domestication is driven by a demand, and that is the intellectual why domestic animals exist.Indeed, animal right believe that if there were no domesticated animals, there would be no scummy for them. Pollan finally accepts that animal suffering is a legitimate problem, but expresses the need to sack human problems first. Again, this perspective puts animals at a disadvantage because they cannot participate in either moral decision making process.Pollan appears to dig utilitarianism on the grounds that human s owe animals that can feel pain moral consideration, and this justifies why they should be eaten. Pollan concludes that industrialization has led to the loss of human feelings, which he refers as dehumanization. Specifi call iny, he points out that America raises and slaughters animals in a brutal manner more(prenominal) than any other country.However, he insists that there is some kind of protectionism, whereby a concoction of key players lack adequate data on the real status of the meat industry in America. If this information were to construct available, the meat industry would undergo an all-night transformation, with meat becoming more expensive. peck will eat meat man giving the animals the respect they deserve. Pollan does not call for total abolishment of the places where animals are slaughtered, but rather advocates for a more gentle way of growing and slaughtering them.Pollans argument appears more rational because his case is argued from a holistic perspective, tak ing views from both animal rightists and meat crusaders. His final stand is based on an analysis of the interests of both the animal rightists and meat crusaders, while that of singer appears to stringently consider animal rights only. Meat eating has featured in the diet of human beings for a long time.The hunter-gatherer societies and the early man both exploited meat, not for luxury but for subsistence. The idea of animal res publica is to sustain the meat industry without compromise the availability of meat in the future. This, however, should be done in the most humanist way. For example, animals should be allocated sufficient space for physical exercise while they are being grown. They should to a fault be slaughtered in such a manner that they should encounter least pain.ReferencesPollan, M. (2002). An Animals Place. The New York Times magazine. Retrieved from http//michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=55 on 9th April 2009