User:Sstiles320/sandbox

= Ethical omnivorism = Ethical omnivorism (also known as virtuous omnivorism, conscientious omnivorism, and moral omnivorism) is a type of omnivorism that focuses on consuming meat in moral ways, such as by supporting producers that treat animals who are being raised for slaughter humanely or by consuming animals that are deemed to have less moral considerability (i.e. that are considered less morally objectionable to kill) (Bobier, 2021). According to Hank Rothgerber, who has a degree in psychology and has delved heavily into the world of morality in animal consumption, many omnivores are becoming more aware of what they monetarily support and have changed their spending choices to reflect their compassion for these animals used for slaughter (Rothgerber, 2015).

While ethical omnivorism has become increasingly popular in recent years, its reception among people who have plant-based diets is still contentious. Many disagree with the slaughter of animals for consumption regardless of the reasoning used to justify such actions and argue there can be nothing ethical or moral about omnivorism no matter how it is practiced (Rothgerber, 2015).

Michael Pollan
While vegetarianism can be tracked all the way back to ancient Greece, the idea to ethically consume meat is a much newer concept that was introduced by Michael Pollan’s 2002 essay “An Animal’s Place.” Pollan was the first to propose an idea that combatted the unconstrained consumption of meat in omnivorism that wasn’t to stop eating and producing it entirely. Instead, he offered the idea that consuming meat from humane farms of a more conservative size would be more beneficial for the environment than vegetarianism. This was in line with the theories of animal scientist Steve Davis, who stated that the most beneficial way to protect the highest number of animals would be to produce meat for consumption by raising the largest animals with the most easily maintainable land. In his opinion, letting these animals be free range would be beneficial to them but would also improve the state of our world (Rothgerber, 2015).

Temple Grandin
Temple Grandin is an autistic animal scientist and a designer of what she refers to as "humane slaughterhouses." Using ideas built on both animal behavior research and her own belief that animals and autistic people have similarities in how they react to sensory stimuli, she has developed multiple different tools to make an animal's experience being taken to slaughter less stressful. One of these tools is a special curved handling chute for cattle which aims to reduce their exposure to noise and visual stimuli, which both lowers their stress levels and makes them easier to maneuver down the chute without prodding from slaughterhouse workers. She also invented a device called a conveyer restrainer which constrains cattle without making them feel strangulated and keeps them in an upright position as they move; this simulates the feeling of being inside of a herd and prevents the cattle from feeling distressed (Lamey, 2019).

Beyond Grandin's involvement in humane slaughterhouses, she is also one of the leading voices on animal consumption/morality issues and an important name and face in the development of ethical omnivorism. She argues that not eating meat would be unnatural, and that omnivorism is simply a better option for the human organism than plant-based diets. "Humans evolved as both plant and meat eaters," she says, and "the vast majority of human beings are going to continue to eat both. Humans are animals, too, and we do what our animal natures tell us to do." To back up this argument, Grandin references her belief that the genomes of those with autism and certain other psychological conditions have evolved in a way that makes it so they are unable to be physically healthy without ingesting a certain amount of meat, although this is not currently substantiated and is derived entirely from her own personal experience of trying to go meat-free (Lamey, 2019).

Peter Singer
Peter Singer is a philosopher who is highly regarded in his field and is often quoted in works relating to ethical omnivorism, though he prefers to use the term "conscientious omnivorism" (Rothgerber, 2015).

Unlike others in his field, who argue that animals have the same right to not endure pain as humans, Singer does not see animals and humans on the same level (Lamey, 2019). He argues that if animals who are raised for consumption live happy lives and are slaughtered with the least amount of pain possible, then it would be perfectly reasonable to continue the practice of slaughter. Singer also argues that the consumption of bivalves lacks any ethical implications, as their low level of sentience is comparable to that of plants (Rothgerber, 2015).

Ethical consumption
The diet of an ethical omnivore revolves around the concept that there are more ethical ways of consuming meat than supporting industries like factory farming. By changing their eating habits, ethical omnivores attempt to limit the injustices done to animals by avoiding making monetary contributions to businesses that use practices that result in their mistreatment (Rothgerber, 2015).

Sociologist Christopher Bobier has suggested that animal products can be consumed ethically if a person only eats the meat of animals who died due to accidents or they consume meat that would otherwise be discarded (Bobier, 2021). In contrast, one of his contemporaries, Abelard Podgorski, argues that if an animal is given the opportunity to live a full, happy life, they could be slaughtered without presenting a moral burden on the consumer (Podgorski, 2020).

Slaughter and causal impotence
In his essay "The Diner's Defence," Abelard Podgorski refers to the concept of causal impotence to argue for the adoption of ethical omnivorism. “If I pay somebody else to commit murder," he argues, "the fact that I was not the one who held the knife does not let me off the hook. Likewise, I could not escape criticism merely by paying someone else to see to it that animals suffer for my benefit" (Podgorski, 2020).

This self-awareness is a key part of the ethical omnivore's identity and one of the driving forces behind their desire to make changes in the farming and slaughterhouse industries. Podgorski says that though the harm we do to animals may be indirect, humans do have the ability to limit it as long as we face the issue head on and don't distance ourselves from it (Podgorski, 2020).

Moral considerability
The term "moral considerability" refers to a being's level of inherent value, which is determined by such things as its level of self-awareness, capacity for emotion, ability to hold beliefs or desires, and understanding of time. Some ethical omnivores argue that animals which are considered to have a lower level of moral considerability—such as bivalves, who are unable to experience pain and have a low level of sentience—are more ethical to consume. Another frequently suggested candidate for moral consumption are insects, who are considered to have a low level of moral considerability because of their rudimentary nervous system, which has been argued to indicate a lack of ability to feel or at the very least comprehend pain (Bobier, 2021).

Ethical omnivorism vs omnivorism
A typical omnivore, upon consumption of a meal, takes little notice of the food they are enjoying or the moral implications of consuming it. Ethical omnivores, on the other hand, are mindful of where their animal products come from and how they were produced. They also tend to consume less meat than their counterparts (Halteman, 2013). Hank Rothgerber argues that omnivores condone and monetarily support the abuse of factory farmed animals, while ethical omnivores actively try to combat the harm caused by factory farming. In his opinion, because there isn’t a substantial difference in the quality of the products produced by ethical farms and factory farms, there is no reason to continue supporting conventional slaughterhouses (Rothgerber, 2015).

Ethical omnivorism vs vegetarianism
Although a common reason people choose to shift to plant-based diets is to limit the harm done to animals, Christopher Bobier states that animals such as field animals, birds, and even fish can be negatively affected by these diets (Bobier, 2015). Most notably, harvesting plants ends in the unnecessary death of many field animals who both die unnecessarily and without use; these animals aren’t consumed or cared for prior and die as collateral damage in humankind's attempt to consume the plants they once lived in (Podgorski, 2020).

Michael Pollan also makes the argument that wholesale omnivorism would be more favorable than wholesale vegetarianism because animals die at a higher rate in the wild than in captivity, which means more animals would die each year if everyone was vegetarian than if everyone was omnivorous. His reasoning for this is that without human care, farm animals would be left to forage for their own food and evade predators, a situation that would ultimately end in entire species being wiped out (Rothgerber, 2015).