Why eat meat?

Comments (34)

1. An interesting debate, and probably one that (like religion) is unlikely to be ethically resolved any time soon.

   My follow on question is “Why flourish, rather than not?”. I guess it’s the nihilism argument “Why not commit suicide” in a different guise. My best answer to date is that due to our evolutionary history and social environment each of us is constrained and as a matter of routine can’t behave any differently. Which would make morals not matters of absolute truth, but matters of social consensus.

   And I had a bacon sandwich for breakfast.

2. I agree. Furtermore, if the Good Lord didn’t want us to eat animals, why did He make them so tasty?

3. I am a vegetarian who used to eat a lot of meat. I think meat is tasty (there’s no point denying that) but the idea that grew in me, and that led me to become a vegetarian was precisely an idea about humans, not animals.

   My reasoning went as follows: When I see an animal, be it a dog, a cow, a goat or whatever, I considere it as a sentient creature, which beyond any doubt has some form of primitive, pre-reflective consciousness which includs, as in any other living being, rejection for pain and, above all, death. It took me some visits to a sloughther house (not an industrial one, but one in the countryside, where animals where not badly treated actually) to realize that I, personally, would not kill an animal to eat it. The the question struk me: If killing an animal is not something I would normally do, if it is something I have an issue with because I empatize with the animal when I see it live, then is it ok if other people do it for me?
   Well, it depends on the situation. If the animal is attacking me, maybe even I would do it. So what about dietary reasons? And here is when I realized, after some research, that meat is not necessary for the human diet (thus, I don’t see how your argument on living the good life holds here), and much less so with the technology we have. We can, as humans, have access to any type of food in the world. We can eat all sort of different beans, we can process soy beans to look like a multitude of textures, we can extract gluten from flour, we can eat quinoa, a nutritious cereal from the Andes mountain range, etc, etc…

   So, not only I stopped eating meat because I, personally, as a matter of personal ethical principles, felt that it was wrong, because I empatized and felt for the other animals, but also because it is not necessary. And I won’t do something which I would rather not, if there is no compelling reason.

   What all this implies, I think, is that there is no absolute, applicable to all humans, argument to be a vegetarian, but it is rather something that has to come up in every individual, as a result of ethical principles and some reasoning and research on the topic. That is, some rational convincing as well.

   To finish, I can say I’ve been a vegetarian for 8 years now, I would not eat meat again, and in all my medical checkups I turn out to be even healthier than the average.

   1. I’m not attacking vegetarianism – in fact on occasions I will eat vegetarian for some period. However, this is an essay on why it is not wrong to eat meat, and why it can be a good. I hope you aren’t denying that meat is nutritious. But I’m not trying to convince vegetarians they are wrong, except insofar as they (as you do not) attack meat eating as an evil.

      As to the alternatives, I think that the environmental cost of trying to eat only vegetable matter is higher than eating meat. However, I can’t back that up right now – I’m relying on my faulty memory of “something I read so it must be true”…

      1. Perhaps you were referring to this?
         http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

         I agree, the only valid basis for sticking something in your mouth (to eat), or declining to do so, is direct effect on you. If you’re allergic, avoid; if it’s too expensive, avoid; if it’s enjoyable, indulge; if it makes you fat or slow, avoid. Indulgence and avoidance can be engaged in moderation.

4. I want to argue that our evolutionary history makes eating meat not only inevitable, but worthwhile, although I would not advocate eating as much meat as we now do in the west.

   That has pretty much been my view for the last 10 years or so. I eat a little meat, but far less than I once did. This seems to be good for my health (good cholesterol numbers, etc). And when eating out, I don’t have to come across as an annoying fusspot.

5. “social environment”

   “I am a vegetarian but I eat fish”, often hear this one, chicken is also sometimes used in it’s place but not as common. You suspect that when no one is around the odd bacon butty may be on the menu as well.

   Scan round someones living room of someone making this claim, small statue of Buddha, sacred healing crystal or some such object is often tucked away somewhere on display, and conversation often turns at some-point to that long summer holiday we spent in India (always careful to point out we are travelers not tourists).

   The need to conform to type and wave the correct flags does seem to drive a notable number of meat eaters to make these claims.

6. I too am attracted to the Aristotelian notion of eudaimonia. But I think it’s simply not true that most people today need some meat in order to flourish. And if, as followers of Darwin, we do not believe that the universe centres around human beings, then arguably we ought to respect the flourishing of members of other species too — particularly sentient individuals. Martha Nussbaum’s “capabilities approach” draws heavily on Aristotle to make a case for species-relative animal rights. Anders Schinkel has a good article explaining Nussbaum and critiquing her inconsistencies:
   http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v013/13.1.schinkel.pdf

   You say, “We presuppose that members of the human species have a moral nature.” Most who defend our current practices toward animals on this sort of basis are invoking species essentialism, which I presume is not your meaning. So what is this “moral nature”, given that many humans are not, and many never can be, moral agents? Much has been written in animal-ethics literature on the so-called “argument from marginal cases”, based on the overlap in capacities between humans and non-humans. One work I would recommend is James Rachels’ Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism.
   http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/LifeSciences/Ecology/AnimalBehavior/?view=usa&ci=9780192861290

   1. You are right that I don’t accept species essentialism, although I think that view is a lot less malignant than many do. But instead, this is a claim about exemplars: we exemplify rights by human beings; whatever else we may say about rights, I think almost nobody denies that human beings have them, whether they are natural, social or fictive. So the question is not about what we should do with human rights so much (in this case) as it is about whether our rights are superseded by the rights of other species. I think that rights should be assigned on the basis of the similarity in the relevant respects of animals to us; for that reason I grant, as I say, some rights to great apes, some to those animals that play a role as agents in our society (dogs, for example), and few rights (basically freedom from pain and suffering) to others.

      As to respecting the flourishing of other species, this is not a simple issue. For a start, being a food animal involves the massive flourishing of a few species, mostly Bos taurus and Sus domesticus. Those species have never had the population size and distribution they had as undomesticated animals. And most of the time they are treated rather well. Second, while a healthy biodiversity is in our interests and thus should be taken as a moral target, I fail to see in the abstract why the flourishing of every other species is a moral good. Rattus rattus, for example.

      So I think that these issues need to be dealt with (and yes, thanks, I read Rachels about ten years back) before we leap to the view that our moral interests are either superseded by or of equal standing with other species. There is always a problem of commensurability.

      I think rights are assigned by society, and so rights for animals depend on their role in society. A Singeresque ethics is unworkable and I think unfounded. I’m betting he’d disagree.

      1. If all humans (including the severely mentally handicapped) have strong rights, and rights ought to be ascribed to non-humans insofar as they have cognitive or sensitive capacities similar to those of humans, it seems we must ascribe strong rights, including the right to life, to many, many sorts of non-humans. (That’s why I raised the argument from marginal cases, and Rachels’ book, in which he argues for what he calls “moral individualism”.) On the other hand, if we try to draw a neat ethical circle around all humans on the basis of some “moral nature” (or ability to do calculus, or expound on Aristotle, or whatever), it looks like we have to invoke some kind of species essentialism, or else be vulnerable to various logical fallacies or reductiones ad absurdum. We can escape these problems by moving to a contract theory of morality. Perhaps that is your position when you say, “I think rights are assigned by society, and so rights for animals depend on their role in society.” Dog and cats are in; pigs and cows are out — because we say so and we have the power.

         I referred to the flourishing of individual members of other species, not the flourishing of other species. I see no reason why we should be committed to maintaining vast numbers of domesticated farm animals — or even, necessarily, to maintaining any at all in existence. As for rats, we are entitled to defend ourselves in order to flourish; and if we can greatly reduce the world’s rat population, preferably by minimally nasty means, fine.

         Personally, for me the basic idea is pretty straightforward (even if the devil is in the details). Insofar as I can flourish without imposing suffering or death on other sentient creatures, I’m happy to forgo making them suffer or die. I realize that no one can live without inflicting some harm on others; but in my books the less, the better.

7. I am not sure where I stand on this issue.

   In fishing communities in Scotland shellfish, of the type that carry a high premium price and status are not traditional eaten, not for economic reason but social status. These are hungry foods, its what the population consumed when it was starving.

   To eat such things is to belong to the bottom of the heap with all the usual judgements that go with such labels.

   I think many parts of the world do not have the luxury of making these moral choices that many in the developed West would seek to impose.
   You do what you have to do in order to survive and end up tucking into a tasty crab if you are starving without any regard for cultural convention.

   I don’t think I have a moral right to dictate to people in poverty that it is in their best interest to starve when crops fail, or to alter their economy and way of life to fit with my western cultural perspectives or sensitivities.

8. Jeb, you make two remarks which I think are wrong.

   First, your depiction of vegetarians as people living surrounded by Buddhist figures and crystals is a nonsense argument. Personally I’m an atheist cognitive scientist and I have many colleges who are also vegetarians. By the same hand, I know many supporters of fascist regimes who eat meat. This does not mean anything….

   And second, of course people should eat meat instead of starving to death, and the fact that there are people starving has nothing to do with this issue, but with how inequality is a part of this profit-based society. There are more than enough resources on earth to feed all, regardless of diet (keeping reasonable proportions, of course), and this is even more so if we destined cattle ground to cultivation of other vegetables or cereals.

   1. “Jeb, you make two remarks which I think are wrong.”

      Hernan should note I was a. not referring to vegetarians and b. would not think of vegetarians as comprising of one group or having a single identity. But yes I can be somewhat sloppy posting.

      “Personally I’m an atheist cognitive scientist.”

      Personally I am an agnostic ethnologist interested in questions about the consumption of cheese, identity, power and authority if papers need to be seen to be in order. But I don’t think that gives me any authority here, these were on the hoof remarks; just prone to thinking about particular aspects surrounding these issues.

      As a cognitive scientist you will be well aware of these issues and also well aware of the complexity that surrounds such things I would hope.

      I would also suggested avoiding mind reading on the way I may view people who are vegetarians or others who use healing crystals or have statues of the Buddha on display.

      I am aware of the issues surrounding cattle and the environment.

      I am also have some awareness of the issues surrounding the politics of identity, ethnicity and administrative involvement in the management of reforms amongst different cultures.

      As I read something about it on the back of a cornflakes packet some years ago.

      1. p.s Henan just stopped smoking so sorry if I come across a bit blunt. But I am sure you have to spend time analysing data in the raw like I do and I think you have sprung to a couple of assumptions based on aspects of identity here relating to both science and vegetarianism.

         If anything I found it amusing to think about meat eating vegetarians alongside issues with agnostic/ atheist identity so was being more self depreciating than may be apparent, not exactly obvious, but I have an unhealthy urge not to bother explaining myself as people seem to have made up their minds on issues already and are not given to much reflection on issues with regard to either self or others.

9. Richard Carter, FCD:
   I agree. Furtermore, if the Good Lord didn’t want us to eat animals, why did He make them so tasty?

   I don’t like the taste so I don’t eat them.

10. Hernán: I know many supporters of fascist regimes who eat meat. This does not mean anything….

    Hitler was a convinced vegetarian!

    Before you think that I’m implying anything against vegetarians with the statement of this totally irrelevant historic fact I should point out that I have been a vegetarian for 43 years. I have even cooked and served the Albino Aussie Anthropoid a vegetarian meal, which I have good reason to believe he enjoyed.

    1. I have to say I did, although the village was understandably nervous about a silverback gorilla roaming freely in their midst.

    2. Hitler may have been a convinced vegetarian, but it seems he was not a vegetarian. In other words, he sometimes denounced meat-eating, but apparently he continued to eat at least some meat. And yes, this fact is — or ought to be — irrelevant. (I understand that Hitler loved his mother.)

       1. I don’t think issues with regard to the way the way Hitler or the Nazis used animal rights issues in relation to the Jewish question are irrelevant but that is certainly not to suggest that modern vegetarians or those who identify as such, are Nazis.

          Only that these issues are more than just ethical or philosophical issues.
          Particularly when ethics are dictated by political administrators and used in identity issues.

          http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T5aN5S6AhXQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

11. Thanks for introducing me to “eudaimonia.” It’s nice to have an obscure and foreign word to justify what you’re going to do anyway, despite any moral qualms.

    1. I don’t think you’ve quite got the point of moral philosophy.

       Then again, maybe you have…

12. I have a hard time applying the “sentience” or “cognitive ability” guideline to diet choice. The line seems a bit too fuzzy for me to apply it (given the ability of most living organisms to “sense” and respond to their environment in myriad complex and wonderful ways). I guess I’d balk at cannibalism, and factory farming of meat can be a repulsive (and cruel, and unhealthy, and uneconomic) process, but we do need to kill and eat to live.

13. Once again, what a sad day for skepticism. Why is it that we don’t tolerate ignorant and caustic remarks about any other subject, but the ethics of meat eating in the humanist community can be asserted with a wave of the hand without any reference the ethical literature, or in fact without any reference to the reality of factory farming? If you think that child abuse is wrong for very young children, then animal abuse is wrong because subjectively the trauma of being subjected to cruelty is just as agonising. You would not cut off a child’s testicles without pain relief, for doing such a thing you would be sent to prison – so how exactly are you justifying doing the same thing to a sensitive animal like a pig, who is just as capable of suffering? How would you rationalize dropping a child into a scalding tank while conscious? No doubt you would appeal to some moronic Kantian ethics and ‘eudaimonia’. Before you accuse me and every other vegetarian of sensationalism, perhaps you would have the decency to actually reference factory farming, where, according to the soil association in the UK, which has some of the most progressive animal welfare laws in the world, 93% of pigs are ‘farmed’ in CAFOs. They have their testicles cut off without pain relief, and according to welfare reports from the industry itself, pigs routinely remain conscious while being processed in slaughterhouses – that means that many of them are fully aware and sensitive when they are dropped into scalding tanks. Answer the argument from marginal cases and then you may have a mildly interesting point to make, but as it stands you are just like every other psuedo-philosopher who doesn’t cite a single piece of research or argument in this hugely complicated moral issue, but is confident that vegetarianism must be wrong because you like the taste of meat.
    I’d just like to very quickly add another point about your carnism non-argument. We evolved to eat meat as part of an omnivorous diet, but that doesn’t mean that it’s essential for us to eat meat. It’s quite a sophomoric point to make of course, but then it’s necessary to have to say that even to academics like yourself. Again, what a tragic day for reason.

    1. A sad day for reasoning, anyway, since you clearly did not read what I wrote.

       First off, the history of human carnivory of domesticated animals is not confined to western, modern, industrialised farming practices, which everyone agrees has a nasty history. Most pigs and cattle were raised in family situations, traditionally, and the pigs and cattle often had as good or better lives than those farming them. The United States is not the whole world, I find it sad to have to remind someone yet again. I am not arguing for intensive farming practices, as you might have inferred from my comment that we should eat less meat than we now do. In 600 words I cannot cover every detail.

       Second I am not arguing against vegetarianism where people find that agreeable. I think that they tend to underestimate the ecological impact that it has, but food needs to be created and that will have an ecological impact no matter what. I am arguing for a position (limited meat eating) not against a position (vegetarianism). Again, if you read carefully, you might have seen that.

       The knee-jerk reactionary vegetarianism that you exemplify is one reason why people find it hard to discuss things with many vegetarians. You think that any argument in favour of a view not your own is by definition idiotic, ignorant or illogical. In that respect, you are just ideologues, no better or worse than religious ideologues or political ideologues. If you have nothing to contribute to an actual discussion, do us a favour and go away somewhere else more congenial to your unquestioning ideology.

14. I’m not an Epicurean, but I eat meat because of smell, taste, and hunger. Um, I’m sorry if that is not a philosophical answer : -)

15. Long comment to follow, I don’t comment often on blogs, so I’m not sure if there’s an etiquette to comment length, but I enjoyed exploring this issue through writing, so here it is:

    If we are morally opposed to killing or hurting animals, what are we to do with non-human carnivorous animals? Here’s one solution:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/09/should-we-kill-off-the-carnivores/18860/

    We humans have choices that non-human animals lack – to lessen our meat consumption, and for some, to eliminate it. But if predation is a fundamental element of a functioning ecosystem, it’s hard to denounce it as intrinsically wrong. If animal consumption and slaughter is wrong enough that we should eliminate meat from our diet, we should also eliminate the propagation of carnivorous species, at least in captivity, since they are not part of the ecosystem. I am wondering how anyone who is vegetarian for moral reasons can justify keeping a dog or a cat, considering they require the slaughter of animals to survive.

    While we have significant cognitive/moral differences from animals (though not as big as we’d like to think), biologically we are still animals. Omnivorous animals. To abstain from meat due to our ‘higher’ nature (our rationality combined with empathy) may be a higher moral choice for some, but only because for them this is a means of expressing the higher moral principle of lessening suffering where possible – it does not follow that we are obligated to eliminating all suffering (since some suffering is a byproduct of a more important purpose), nor that eating meat is itself an immoral act, only that one may choose abstinence as an individualistic expression of ethics; the fact is, even though some humans can do without it, on the large scale, we as a species need at least some meat in our diet.

    That some amount of meat is crucial to humans is evidenced in the cannibalism that has long been rampant in Papua New Guinea; until westerners introduced livestock, there were very few large animals to eat – the largest was a tree kangaroo, but most protein is found in small birds, bats, insects, etc. This led to the widespread practice of cannibalism (at least this is to me the most reasonable explanation – not for the existence of cannibalism in humans, but why it was widespread in PNG in a way not found elsewhere)

    There are ethical and health reasons to lessen meat in our diet, or for some to remove it completely. But simply the act of meat consumption by humans in general is not immoral, and in fact I would argue that so long as it keeps you and others healthy, it is actually more moral to eat meat than to refrain – of course, most people are less healthy for the amount they eat, but the point is that meat in itself is not the issue, but imbalance.

    As for reducing the suffering of animals: we do have a moral duty to decrease the suffering of slaughter and inhumane conditions, and the vegetarians view abstinence from meat as the means to do so. And this is a very noble and moral reason to do so. The issue at hand there is lessening suffering, and insofar as meat consumption increases suffering, it is quite reasonable and moral to choose to lessen suffering by not eating meat.

    There are, however, many, many, ways in which sentient beings (including humans) who suffer, and we must choose our priorities. If we, like many animals, are designed to consume at least some meat, while we may as humans have ethical reasons to lessen the suffering in doing so, we don’t have a fundamental ethical obligation to eliminate all suffering related to the biological fact of carnivory, of which it is quite natural for humans to take part in, like many other animals.

    1. I concur. Well said.

    2. We are “designed to consume at least some meat”; it is “quite natural” to eat meat. Therefore it is at least sometimes morally acceptable to impose suffering and death on other creatures. (The justification for your apparent move from is to ought is not clear to me.) We may not need meat as individuals, but as a species we need some meat. (How/why does the human species need some meat? Because there were once cannibals in Papua New Guinea?) As long as something keeps you healthy, it’s moral to do it. (Even if you can be healthy without doing it?)

       It’s true that none of us has clean hands. Even a vegan diet involves some harm to sentient animals. As far as I know, vegetarian diets generally have a much smaller ecological footprint than typical meat-based diets, and vegan diets in particular involve significantly fewer animal deaths.
       http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/
       Admittedly, this is a complex subject, and any conclusions involving ecological considerations must be tentative. I endorse Jeb’s thought (below) that “we are all just people struggling to do the best we can in what are at times difficult waters.” But we can still push on (or swim on). I like a slogan I read recently: Take the first step, not the last step.

16. All the more for us non-fussy eaters!

17. I have to agree that morality is not all or nothing, and that limited meat eating is more ethical than the standard American diet. Vegetarianism exists on this moral spectrum and is less ethical than veganism but more ethical than limited meat eating. The problem I have with meat apologetics and flexitarianism as advocated by the likes of Michael Pollan is that it’s too easy to compromise that stance whenever it’s convenient to do so. As you know, at least 96% of animals in the United States are factory farmed, and the moral case against animal factories is airtight and damning. Whenever conscientious meat eaters shop at a supermarket, eat at a friend’s barbeque, consume a ham sandwich or hotdog at a football game, they are likely to be consuming factory farmed meat. This never happens if one chooses not to eat meat.

    A second objection is that the food industry markets products in a cynical way to give the impression that they were farmed according to humane welfare practices, when in fact labels like ‘free-range’, ‘organic’ and ‘farm assured’ can be almost meaningless. Jonathon Safran Foer discusses this in Eating Animals. Again, ethical meat eating can support factory farming by proxy unless one is extremely selective, whereas vegetarianism never does.

    The third and most important issue I have with limited meat eating is that virtually all animals end up in the slaughterhouse, and I’m sure you’re aware of the chilling abuses that are routine in abattoirs. You haven’t answered the assumption that says it’s okay to dismember a pig while conscious but not a baby, and this isn’t just a welfare teething problem but an endemic and inevitable part of the food industry.

    The best presentation I’ve seen on the assumptions behind ethical meat eating is by the historian James McWilliams, second video down on this list: http://www.idausa.org/conscious_eating/index.html

    I’m sorry for the first angry tirade, and you’re right that it could have been much more constructive. I’ll leave you in peace now, and by the way I very much enjoy reading your blog.

18. ” it’s too easy to compromise that stance”

    About six months ago during an argument with my partner over the t.v remote, I said “right that’s it I am going to go out and buy a pack of cigarettes. It’s all you’re fault” (slams front door in justified indignant rage on way to the cig. shop)

    A number of years ago my vegan flat mate said almost exactly the same thing. “You bastard, I am going to have to have a bacon roll and its all you’re fault “(standing at cooker, with nice smell wafting through house)

    I think these things just suggest the choices we have to make in life are not easy and at times very difficult to hold and maintain.

    Say nothing about one group or the other but suggest we are all just people struggling to do the best we can in what are at times difficult waters.

19. I grew up working on the family ranch and have always been pretty much of a carnivore. I don’t have cholesterol problems, which illustrates the basic unfairness of the universe. However, I developed gout, and was advised to limit red meat, dairy products, and shellfish. I have done so. Over time my perception of and desire for food has changed. I very seldom have a steak, and have given up yogurt and buttermilk. I only occasionally gorge on shrimp or calimari. I have always liked chicken and fish. I’m sure, without having to look it up that barbecued goat is not red meat. I’ve not had a recurrence of gout. I take various medications which are not to be taken with alcohol, and have quit drinking beer. I did get hot and sweaty the other day and bought a six pack, which will last me a month or two.

20. Very interesting.

    When distilled I think JSW’s argument is a defence that eating some meat is ethically permissible –at least to Melbournians– if (1) the raising-slaughtering process inflicts minimum pain thus isn’t animal cruelty, and if (2) that meat helps our health non-trivially and so contributes to human flourishing.

    I think we can spot why fulltime vegetarians feel both ethical points are wrongheaded. Maybe it’s cruel even if painfree, maybe Melbournians on the whole would stay satisfactorily healthy/flourishing without meat.

    1. A nice summary, and I like the Russellian flourish “at least in Melbourne” (although you didn’t say “on one side”).

       Possibly one has to inflict harm on other forms of life in order to live (I think that is true and irrefutable). “Cruel” then would be whatever is unnecessary harm. As to flourishing, again I think that is a matter of fact, not norms or definitions…

Comments are closed.