Written response about eating factory farms

Written response about eating factory farms, writing

Question description


Kindly follow the instructions. I will not accept any plagiarised work. Keep it 100% original and follow the instructions to the end

In a double spaced  paper of approximately 5 – 7 pages (which translates roughly to 1,750 – 2,450 words), write a response to one of the following prompts.

I greatly encourage you to contact me with questions regarding paper writing strategies, how to write a philosophy paper in general, or questions on your particular paper. In the event you have an original prompt idea different from those listed below, please feel free to send it my way; pending my approval, I will allow you to write a paper on topics not listed here, so long as they are related to the course material.

Prompt 1: The film makers of Cowspiracy seem to be arguing that the environmental impact of meat production makes the practice morally unjustifiable, from a purely anthropocentric perspective. Philosophers like Peter Singer and Tom Regan present arguments which conclude that we ought to give non-human animals equal consideration  in our moral decision making. If these arguments are correct, they seem to greatly condemn the dietary habits of most people in the world. They are particularly problematic for American omnivores, who eat factory farmed meat. In the form of an essay, answer the following questions:

  1. a)Is eating factory farm raised meat morally justifiable? What about “free-range,” or other “cruelty-free,” sources of meat? Provide an argumentative defense of your answer to these questions.
  2. b)Present a strong objection to your argument. What fault might a well-reasoning person find in your argument? Explain why one could think this is a problem for your argument.
  3. c)Provide a response to this objection. Your response should explain that, why the objection is reasonable, but does not prove your argument is false.

Prompt 2: Some environmentalists have argued that we ought to aim at preserving wildlife and ecosystems in their natural state, effectively letting them be as they are. Others, like Peter Schmidtz and Corey Knowlton, claim that preservation ultimately fails by its own lights, and thus we ought to aim to converse wildlife. Conservationists claim that, while we should try to prevent species from going extinct, we should be willing to manage their habitat and/or population, in addition to making use of these animals for human benefit, even if it means killing them.

  1. a)Take a side on this issue. Should we preserve wildlife, or aim instead for conservation? Give an argument in support of your view.
  2. b)Present an objection which a reasonable, well-informed opponent would raise to your view.
  3. c)Give a response which can successfully dispel the objection to your argument.

Prompt 3: The main claim made by the titular character in Ishmael is that the present way in which humans relate to the Earth and its other creatures, is  the root cause of the present ecological crisis. In an essay, do the following:

  1. a)Present one of the argumentative claims made by Ishmael to support this conclusion. (He makes several argumentative claims throughout the novel; focus on and develop just one.)
  2. b)Provide an objective against Ishmael’s claim, as presented.
  3. c)Critically evaluate both claims; can Ishamel give an adequate response to the objection? Explain why or why not.