hamlet代写：人与动物生命意义的差异
洛玛斯基认为，吃得好是人类的权利，人与动物的生命意义存在着明显的差异，与动物相比，人被认为是理性的动物。他肯定人类吃得好很重要，因为吃饭作为一种实践比习惯更有意义。他谈到了古老的饮食习惯，这些饮食习惯丰富了人类的生活，给吃东西的人带来了愉快的体验。洛玛斯基认为，正是习惯使非肉食者不吃肉，尽管他们渴望吃肉。他提出，吃肉是，而且必须被视为一个人满足欲望的原因，当一个人吃肉时，理性不会受到伤害。此外，吃肉提供了身体所需的所有必要成分。洛玛斯基还认为，吃动物比吃其他动物更好，这是他的最后一个主张，吃肉并不是一个大的伤害，正如一些素食主义者或精神上的人看到，他们一辈子不吃动物。一个主要的论点是反对洛玛斯基关于吃肉对动物造成无关紧要的伤害的主张，因为动物有一种被人类视为理所当然的内在价值感，而吃肉的人沉迷于满足他们不断的吃的欲望。
hamlet代写：人与动物生命意义的差异
例如，当一个人可以吃到提供了所有必要的蛋白质或矿物质的水果和蔬菜时，为了满足饥饿而杀死动物是没有意义的。吃动物的肉，它要求动物被杀死，因此人类否认了动物的生命权，这是从来没有给人类的(Quong)。如果把人称为理性的人，那么为了吃而杀死无辜的动物，满足舌头的感官享受，这种行为本身就是非理性的。大自然为我们提供了树木，它给我们各种各样的丰富的食物，永远不会过时，树木生长，并不断给我们的营养，因为我们给树浇水。这是大自然给人类的礼物，尽管当一个人沉溺于无法控制的感官满足时，这些食物是可以得到的，但这个人正在变成一个不理性的存在，只专注于个人的满足。Regan(1985)提出了一个有趣的观点，认为根本的错误在于允许人类假设动物是他们的资源，而不是具有内在价值的生物的系统。
hamlet代写：人与动物生命意义的差异
Lomasky contends that eating well is the right of humanity and that the significance of life of man and animals has a sharp difference, where man is considered as a rational animal compared with animals. He affirms that eating well by humans is important because dining as a practice is more meaningful rather than habitual. He talks about the ancient eating habits that has been enriching human lives and giving pleasurable experiences to the eater. Lomasky believes that it is habituation that has kept the non-meat eaters away from eating meat in spite of desiring for eating it. He proposes that meat eating is and must be seen as a reason of one’s fulfillment of desire and that rationality is not harmed when one eats meat. Besides, eating meat provides one with all the necessary ingredients that the body requires. Lomasky also believes that eating animals is better off than eating others and this makes his last proposition that eating meat is not a big harm as seen by some vegetarians or spiritual beings who abstain from eating an animal all their life. A major contention is made against Lomasky’s claim about eating meat causing insignificant harms to animals by the argument that animals have a sense of inherent value which is taken for granted by humans and that meat eating humans are indulged in fulfilling their incessant desires of eating.
hamlet代写：人与动物生命意义的差异
For example, when fruits and vegetables are available for one to eat which provides all the necessary proteins or minerals, it makes no sense to go ahead and kill an animal for satisfying one’s hunger. For eating meat of an animal, it requires the animal to be killed and hence the human is denying the right of life to that animal which is never given to humanity at large (Quong). If humans are termed as rational beings, the very act of killing an innocent animal for eating and fulfilling the sense gratification of the tongue makes them irrational beings. Nature has provided trees which give us all kinds of enriching food which never goes out of season and the tree grows and keeps giving us nourishment as we water the tree. This is nature’s gift to humanity and in spite of these foods available when one indulges into uncontrollable sense gratification, the individual is becoming an irrational being who is narrow focused on personal fulfillment. Regan (1985) puts an interesting view that the fundamental wrong is the system which allows humans to assume animals as their resources and not beings of inherent value.