Vegetarian Argument

The major issue of neuro-ethical argument for vegetarian is the moral consequences. The vegetarians believe that all creatures that have central nervous system can feel pain, so we should not eat them. The idea is the consciousness is created by the neuron and synapses. We can feel pain, think, taste, and aware of the surrounding because of consciousness. Animals can move, run away, and feel pain. Do they have consciousness? The answer is yes. We just do not understand their languages, besides they can not tell us or explain their pain and feeling.

Maybe we forget one major thing here, human and animals are totally different. Human have much more consciousness such us thinking, therefore we can improve our life. We can create varieties and delicious meals. Animals have more bind situation, most of the animals do not have finger that can be used to hold thing, or language that can be understood by human intellectual. Animal can not improve their life by themselves. Human can build house to protect them from extreme weather, but can animal do the same? If animals are not to be eaten, why they are created differently?

It is true that eating flesh or vegetarians is a choice. Researches and foods are two different things. If we have to use animal as an object research to save more animal or even human life, are we wiling to do so? Many arguments come into this issue. Most of them argue that we have to treat animal humanely. If the research can save hundred thousand lives or someone husband, wife, children, mother or father, why we don’t do that? If an animal is sloughed in order to save other life, isn’t it a noble thing to do?