mals raised and slaughtered for food. The huge amount of grain that is used to feed cattle is a major concern to Rachels. He quotes a conversion ratio of grain used for cattle of 21-1. In other words, we use 21 pounds of protein to get back one pound of meat. He does not argue against consuming fish, because we do not feed them food that we would consume. He argues that if we just reduced the amount of meat we produce, it would release sufficient grain to feed much of the worlds hungry. Vegetarianism would be a viable solution to the problem.The killing of animals for sport is deplorable to Rachels, and he also believes the animals butchered for our consumption are killed by inhumane methods. Rachels, with his utilitarian philosophy, states his case effectively, with strong arguments for vegetarianism. However, he, like Singer, seems to feel that animals should not suffer at the hands of humans. They do not consider that the animal kingdom does not worry about pain when one animal is devouring another. Pain is a part of life in our world and neither animals nor humans are immune from pain and suffering.Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of interposition of a deity. More humble and I think truer is to consider him created from animals. This statement, which some consider controversial and undermining traditional thinking, opens James Rachels book, Created From AnimalsThe Moral Implications of Darwinism.Rachels argues that Darwinism does not undermine the traditional idea of human dignity, but the value of human life and our treatment of animals. Darwin did not deny that human rational abilities exceeded that of animals but insisted that they were only of degree. There is no fundamental difference between man and higher mammals in their mental faculties. He states that they reason and experience many of the same emotions as humans. He even felt that earthworms, in experiments, showed some reasoning ...
