Comparing The Ethics Of What We Eat By Singer And Mason

With countless diets hitting the market each day, it can become impossible to know the best route in order to properly fulfill our nutritional needs without wreaking havoc on the world around us. The philosophical book The Ethics of What We Eat, by Singer and Mason, explores the lasting impact our dietary preferences place on humans, animals, and the environment, as they offer suggestions on how to improve our ecological footprint through our choices. A lasting theme from the book puts a light on the multitude of positive aspects a meat-free diet offers. Singer and Mason put an emphasis on the advantages of adopting a vegan diet and how it is the most ethical option for humans to pursue. They acknowledge the fact that not every person may be

The majority of people in this country tend to follow the "Standard American Diet," which is described as one high in meat, eggs, and dairy products, while being low in fruits and vegetables. This unhealthy way of eating results in low levels of fiber and astronomically high fat intake which can often lead to an unfortunate amount of health problems when consumed on a regular basis. As one may infer, what we eat directly impacts our health in ways much more sizable than how we look on the outside. Because the human body is not meant to process so much fat, salt, and sugar, consuming such foods is detrimental, causing degenerative diseases as a direct result. Those who eat supposedly healthy diets consisting of animal products are still filling their bodies with saturated fat, cholesterol, and the countless antibiotics, pesticides, and chemicals that were fed to the same factory farmed animals they are now consuming. Despite the proven negative impact these habits pose on the human body, millions of people continue to eat this way every day without a second thought. Without realizing it, people's food choices are risking their own wellness while simultaneously placing their environment's health in harm's

Stereotypes often conclude that meat is a healthy and vital component of a human diet. Jake Hillard questions her own actions and morals to ponder, "yeah, we're adapted to eat meat, but if we don't have to, then why do it" (Singer and Mason 20). In this case, as The Ethics of What We Eat points out, the fallacy of tradition comes to play. In reality, humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animal products, as researched by the American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics (Singer and Mason 240). Once someone faces this internal dilemma with a more objective eye, it becomes clear that there very well may be flaws in the standard diet many people adhere to. As The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies puts it, "what is traditional seems right. This is the way we have always done things" (Paul and Elder 24). This warped way of thinking pushes people to do things, such as eating meat, simply because it is what humans have always done. Contrary to this idea, just because people have always done something, does not always mean it is necessary or