Pin’s opinion about the morality of eating meat in Law’s essay

I disagree with Law’s essay about the immorality of eating meat. He has many strong points which can demonstrate obviously by using an example of mental impaired humans. However, there are two points which are still unclear.

First of all, in the topic of health and design, he says “we don’t need to eat meat to stay healthy”. It is wrong because a human being needs protein to survive and get healthy. Proteins are the most important nutrition. They are essential in the diet of humans for the growth and repair of tissue, especially when you get sick. Furthermore, in a basic of sciences, there is a food chain in the ecological community that constitutes a continuation of food energy from one organism to another as each consumes a lower member and in turn is preyed by a higher member. Therefore, it is morally acceptable that people who are the largest members of the world can eat meat.

The second point is that Law discusses the idea about animals which have no sense of right or wrong, so we cannot blame them for they kill and eat each other, not like humans. I do not think so, because animals have sense; such as dogs. They know who are their owners, so they will not kill people to eat, and they have sense of what species they can eat. On the other hand, tigers and other cruel animals hurt and eat humans; thus, why humans should not eat them.

All of these reasons; hence, it is morally acceptable that a human being cans eat meat.