In the blog \u201cMill on the Utility of Red Meat,\u201d the author argues that \u201cwe should all strive for vegetarianism,\u201d and that certain moral sanctions should be put in place to promote this particular diet. However, this issue is ostensibly private, and should not be thought of in terms of the public. Locke would argue that subsistence is a matter to be determined by the individual, not the collective public. This is made clear in his assertion that \u201cnobody can deny but the nourishment is his\u201d (28). In declaring that nourishment is the individual\u2019s own choice and possession, Locke makes clear that this is not to be infringed upon by any sort of legal or moral mechanism.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the idea of establishing vegetarianism as a collective lifestyle is in direct violation of the sovereignty of the individual. Locke argues that \u201cThe equality of men by nature\u2026[is] beyond all question,\u201d and that man\u2019s sovereignty is \u201cin common with the rest of mankind.\u201d (5, 29). This assertion recognizes the total equality of every man, and that any man who attempts to assert his own will over others is infringing upon their natural rights. Coercing everyone to become vegetarian would be a direct infringement upon this natural right of individual sovereignty, as it would be enforcing a lifestyle that is beneficial to some individuals upon everyone else.<\/p>\n
This is established by John Locke that \u201cthe state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind\u2026that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions\u201d (6). Although the author of \u201cMill on the Utility of Meat\u201d makes an argument that red meat is detrimental to health, there are many scientific sources that would refute such a claim. Moreover, there are many benefits to the consumption of meat. Those who have anemia, for instance, would benefit from iron found in meat. Although supplements are available, this would be a burden upon the individual, as they may be far costlier than meat itself. Additionally, vegetarianism carries many health concerns, as many people who partake in this lifestyle find themselves deficient in necessary nutrients.<\/p>\n
Thus, such a decision as to whether an individual should consume meat should be left to that individual. As Locke claims, \u201cwhether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence;\u201d we can rightfully determine that any attempt to dictate what man subsists upon would be wrong (25). Because individuals are capable of reason, they can determine what is most beneficial to their health themselves, and any mechanism other than their own reason that would enforce a specific lifestyle would be unjust.<\/p>\n
Not only would this infringe upon the individual in terms of their sovereignty, it would also be a violation of property. Locke asserts that the \u201cprivate dominion over the earth, and all inferior or irrational creatures\u201d should not be infringed upon (23). Furthermore, he posits that men also have \u201creason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.\u201d (26) This claim directly refutes any support of collective vegetarianism, as meat is the property of man. Man, through his claim to property, and through his innate ability to reason, can determine for himself how best to use his own property. To infringe upon that right, would be to infringe upon man\u2019s right to make the most of his resources in the manner he chooses. Accordingly, \u201cevery man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself.\u201d (27)<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is a clear violation of man\u2019s right to life, liberty, and property to put in place moral or legal sanctions requiring vegetarianism. Because man is able to reason, and is therefore rightfully able to discern how he subsists, no individual should be obstructed from choosing what he wants to eat. If an individual wishes to eat only plants, they should be absolutely free to do so. However, requiring that everyone else do the same degrades the rights of the individual. Therefore, this issue is private, and not public; man has the right to his meat.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.cosmopolitan.com\/health-fitness\/a54533\/is-being-a-vegetarian-bad-for-your-brain\/
\nhttps:\/\/www.organicfacts.net\/health-benefits\/animal-product\/meat.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the blog \u201cMill on the Utility of Red Meat,\u201d the author argues that \u201cwe should all strive for vegetarianism,\u201d and that certain moral sanctions should be put in place to promote this particular diet. However, this issue is ostensibly … Continue reading