Introduction
Humans have a persistent belief that they are entitled to consume other creatures and to kill them. However, according to Pollan and Singer, this idea is debatable and, to some degree, untrue. Peter Singer argues in his essay, "All Animals Are Equal," that the basic principle of equality should be applied to both humans and other non-human animals, taking into account each animal's rights and interests rather than viewing them as a single species. Singer continues to raise the idea of Animal Liberation based on the level of capability of suffering, which seeks the protection of non-human animals against cruelty and harm of all forms by rallying in support and against several causes such as Black Movement and Feminist Movement. Singer extends the idea of liberation from the field of human history to the animal study area, while questioning speciesism, "The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?" (Singer 107).
Michael Pollan's Perspective
On the other hand, according to the essay "An Animal's Place," Michael Pollan considers the relationship between human and other species through our day-to-day experience, illustrating the reason why humans lack the respect to other animals due to the problem such as invisibility, and factory farming. Pollan advocates that the humankind should refrain from eating animals as meat but instead focus on becoming vegetarian. Unlike Singer, Pollan offers the possible solution at the end of his article rather than advocating his readers to stop eating meat entirely. In my perspective, I find that Michael Pollan "An Animal Place" is more effective in compelling me to re-evaluate my relationship with the animals. In which case, as Pollan examines the difference between "killing the animals" and "animals suffering" at a practical level, Singer talks about the right of animals abstractly, which is hard to form a picture in mind.
Michael Pollan's Rebuttal
According to Michael Pollan, Singer's argument is absurd. The basic tenets of using suffering to establish a cause could not be justified. Pollan further argued that the fact that humans are enjoying the consumption of animal products is analogous to enjoying the pain that the animals had to endure during the butchering and should be warranted as obscene and unfounded (Pollan). Singer tries to imply that since individuals enjoy eating steak, they enjoy the thought of having an innocent animal killed to satisfy their craving. Pollan explores the relationship between humans and other species in expounding the idea of the evolutionary contract, which refers to the mutualism model between species. Pollan indicates, "Humans provided the animals with food and protection in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk, eggs, and—yes— their flesh" (Pollan 64). Thus, human nourishment is not a whim but a vital key to survival. Hence, they need to eat in order to survive a fact that forms the basic tenets of Darwin's Theory of Survival or Natural Selection.
Importance of Humane Practices
Furthermore, to ensure proper nutrition and adequate nourishment, people need to consume a certain amount of meat products which is their source of protein and minerals. Pollan was right in his argument when he said that it would highly be preposterous to consume human beings because according to him that was cannibalism. However, this is beside the point. The point is that there are humane ways of minimizing the pain that animals had to go through for food consumption. Additionally, there is a law that sets the boundaries of which animals can be utilized as sources of food consumption and nourishment. In the same manner, there is a law that stipulates the acceptable means awe well as the appropriate approach to undertake in the process of killing animals for food. Any use of excessive pain on animals in the event of butchering them for food is punishable by law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is within the scope and boundaries of animal welfare to state that indeed nonhuman animals should be protected as well as minimal pain and suffering be applied during the process of food preparation. However, to argue that human beings and animals should enjoy equal right is impractical. In that case, Singer was able to draw enough attention with his appeal to animal lovers and animal advocates suggesting that it is time to take action and take the fight to a much higher level. Nevertheless, the core of the critical point of the whole campaign was centered on how common and acceptable practices like animal consumption would be classified as a mark of barbarism. Therefore, it is appropriate to always follow the laws and best practices in the event of utilizing animals for food consumption and not ignorantly inducing pain.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. "An Animal's Place." The New York Times Magazine 10 November 2002: 58. Print.
Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Philosophical Exchange 1, no. 5 (summer 1974) : 103-116
