Ethics of Eating Meat?

Question

Please, read the whole thing before you respond, and avoid one liners. Links are fine though.

I found this post on a philosophy forum and thought it was an interesting argument. Does anyone have an argument AGAINST it?

1. Despite obvious differences between human and nonhuman animals, we share a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us have interests in not suffering. If we ignore or discount their interests simply on the grounds that they are not of the same species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the racist or sexist - he who thinks that to be white or male is to be inherently superior in moral status, irrespective of other qualities and characteristics.

Some humans - infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities - have less ability to reason and less self-awareness than some nonhuman animals. So we cannot justifiably use these criteria to draw a distinction between all humans on the one hand and all nonhuman animals on the other.

If we wish to maintain the view that no conscious human beings, including those with profound, permanent intellectual disabilities, can be used in ways harmful to them solely as a means to another's end, then we are going to have extend the boundaries of this principle beyond our own species to other animals that are conscious and able to be harmed. Otherwise we are drawing a moral circle around our own species, even when the members of our own species protected by that moral boundary are not superior in any morally relevant characteristics to many nonhuman animals who fall outside that moral circle.

2. Do you wish to repeal laws against domestic animal cruelty (pet abuse)? If you say no, then why? It will be because it is wrong to beat the hell out of a dog or cat. If your response is like that, yet you eat meat, you are what is called a moral schizophrenic. In what ways is torturing a pig less unethical than torturing a dog or cat? There is none; by chance dogs and cats have been domesticated for companionship while pigs and cows domesticated for food. They differ in no morally relevant characteristics (except that a pig might be the smartest of them all). If you want to see what it is like to be immorally consistent then just picture your dog or cat in one of the many cute factory farm pictures you can find in books or on the web. Picture thousands!

3. I gather up about a hundred buffalo. I shoot them all simultaneously with a perfect shot that kills them istantly. I then just leave the corpses in the field and move on. Was this unethical? Well they weren't eaten. If you think that was unethical to then you should think it unethical whenever you do not finish all the meat from your meal. To be morally consistent you would have to always eat all the meat you buy.

Answer 1

You being housed and using a computer and me doing the same causes suffering for animals. If we are going to adhere to such a philosophy, then it would stand to reason that we would look at all suffering.

The building that you live in has displaced resident populations of insect and animal life. There were likely deaths in erecting the structure. Further, our garbage is choking the animals environment and the ecosystem in general.

I used antibiotics in recent months. These were tested on animals who were intentionally infected and then treated. Some died. This caused animal suffering. My use of the anitobiotics prevented me from me being admitted to emergency and possibly dying due to a particular type of infection.

Powering and using our computers has a tremendous impact on th e ecosystem and all animals within it.

Further, I have money in a retirement fund. By keeping that money, others are suffering. I could easily ease the suffering of other humans, let alone that of animals by not having that money set aside.

Such broad philosophical ethical/moral perspectives often overlook the practical and day to day lives that we all have.

The underlying or overreaching principle is that to cause suffering for another -- human or animal is wrong. I only spent a few seconds and I was able to come up with several inconsistencies. Imagine what I could come up with on a few days of pondering. And further, would you consider being held accountable under the law for such actions.

Answer 2

The poster would argue based on several false assumptions. On his question about the buffalo, he asked wouldn't it then be unethical for us to waste the food on our plates. Well I've got news for him, in several cultures where food is scarce it definitely is. The buffalo example just increased the scale to make you agree with him.

And racists don't eat people of other races. We criticize racism because it is a form of disrespect for our fellow man. It is based on the value of a human being. Should the value be betrayed by the value of an animal?


The logic of a racist vs. the logic of a humanist. There is an instinct in nature that calls for the survival of the species. Tell me if you find it ethical to let people die of starvation rather than to feed them meat. The thing is, meat is a very good source of nourishment. Animal products are also very useful. To subscribe to an ideology of the like of PETA would cause a great deal of sacrifice.

So the question I have to ask is "is it all worth it?"

Answer 3

What makes a Lion eat meat? What makes a whale eat plankton? Having the ability to be conscious or having awareness of an issue or subject involves a certain amount of responsibility………..and all that depends on what you choose to accept as your belief be it religious or scientific. What about pregnant woman who have cravings? These craving may be created by the mind that is just responding to a system flooded with hormones and they may even hate the food craved for. So you could always take the stand “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and apply this to all forms of life. Me personally, I am free to eat anything, but if my friend does not like pork, then while I am with him I wont upset our time together.

“Unfortunately, the prevailing condition is that we live in a society of people who for the most part refuse to take responsibility for much of anything, and who are rewarded for not doing so -- ranging from their individual choices to the direction of the world. We certainly live in an interesting time when we are sorting out the boundary between what McDonald's puts in its food, how much they serve you, how many restaurants they put in your face, and the intensity of advertisements aimed at kids under the age of 2, versus our responsibility to make sane choices about what we eat.” Eric Francis.

Answer 4

If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.
Sorry! I just had to say it.

Answer 5