The timing could not be worse. Halfway through my quest to gain fifteen pounds, I've come to the conclusion that eating meat is wrong. Here's why:
Many animals feel pain. More importantly, the animals we eat feel pain. Vertebrates have central nervous systems that allow for the transmission and processing of pain via neurotransmitters and the cerebral cortex. Some animals even possess the ability to emotionally respond to suffering, a requirement that animal rights critics contend is necessary to truly appreciate pain in the way humans do. So there is strong evidence to suggest humans are not unique in their ability to suffer.
The question then becomes, "Is the pain inflicted on animals justified by the marginal utility gained by humans?" The answer seems to be “no.” Would torturing an animal be morally permissible, given that the torturer derives great joy from doing so? If not, what distinguishes this case from eating meat? It's difficult to draw a relevant distinction between the desire to have a meaty taste in one's mouth and the desire to assert one's dominance over other creatures. But in both cases, animals suffer far more than humans gain in pleasure. Robert Nozick draws the analogy of someone who enjoys swinging a bat: it would be unacceptable for a man to swing a bat if the only place to do it were in front of a cow, even if he really, really enjoyed it. So in terms of utility trade-offs, eating meat doesn't seem to outweigh the suffering inflicted in obtaining that meat.
One might construe this analysis to assume that equal weight should be given to the preferences of humans and animals (a position of many philosophers, notably Peter Singer). Yet even if humans have greater inherent value than animals, the case against eating meat is still strong. First, the analogies mentioned still hold, so consistency requires that meat eating and bat swinging (at a cow) both be morally permissible or both be morally impermissible. Since my intuitions against swinging a bat at a cow are much stronger than my intuitions in favor of eating meat, I tend to think both actions are unethical, rather than ethical. Second, our alleged right to eat animals cannot derive merely from relative comparisons of value (from humans simply having greater value than other animals). Let me explain. If higher-intelligence aliens were to come to earth, would they be morally justified in eating us, assuming that we taste good? That most people would say “no” demonstrates that regardless of how intelligent aliens might be, their intelligence does nothing to depreciate the inherent value of humans that gives rise to our right not to be eaten. Therefore a more coherent understanding of the relationship between humans and animals is required.
Some people try to draw a relevant distinction at rationality: humans are rational, animals are not, and only rationality confers rights; hence humans have rights and animals do not. But this position is too simplistic: do the mentally retarded, comatose, or infantile have rights? To be more precise, do they have natural rights that inhere in their very existence, despite their lack of rationality? If so, rationality cannot be the sole standard for determining who can be eaten. A more reasonable approach (one consistent with the arguments in the previous paragraph) is to stay that different factors can contribute to one’s overall value, which in turn determines what rights one has. These factors include sentience, self-awareness, rationality, being alive, existing in reality, etc. Being real and alive are prerequisite, though perhaps not sufficient in themselves, to grant rights. (Still, would snapping one’s fingers to destroy a far-off planet blossoming with exotic plant life be, in a sense, wrong?) Sentience and the ability to feel pain add further value, enough to require that others have warrant before inflicting pain on creatures with these attributes. This explains why slamming a bat into a cow’s head would be immoral.
Rationality indeed adds further value, distinguishing humans from other animals. Nonetheless, it is not apparent why this additional value conferred on humans should depreciate the preexisting value of other animals gained from their sentience, or elevate the importance of trivial human pleasures like taste. Cannot animals also taste and experience the same wonderful sensations we do? Rationality does nothing to meaningfully distinguish our taste from animals’ tastes. From this perspective, if we accept that the value of our taste sensation roughly equals that of other animals, and that the total value of an animal is greater than the value of its taste sensation, then we must conclude (by transitivity) that an animal’s life is more important than the pleasures of human taste. Essentially, the framework I am proposing argues this: living beings have differing degrees of value and hence differing degrees of rights; yet in order to preserve respect for an animal’s inherent value (derived from its sentience or some other attribute), humans should treat animals with the same respect that we afford ourselves in areas that humans and animals are identical. Therefore, since human taste is worth no more than animal taste, human taste is worth no more than animal life. Killing animals for self-preservation, however, is always justified because the total value of a human life is greater than the value of an animal’s life. And we can still prefer the suffering of animals to an equal (or somewhat smaller) degree of human suffering, because a fixed degree of physical pain would arguably generate more harm to humans than it would to other animals. For example, a blow to the head might cause a severe mental handicap for both a baby and a chimp, but the baby has much more to lose since its potential is so much greater. Similar arguments can be made for virtually any other instance in which equal pain is inflicted on a human and a nonhuman animal. My point in mentioning these instances of self-preservation and minimization of harm to humans is to illustrate that this framework of understanding is a reasonable one; it produces answers that conform to our strongest intuitions.
I should mention one objection that often arises. Some people argue that one person's refraining from meat eating will have no impact on the number of animals killed for food; thus eating meat is permissible under a utilitarian framework. But my argument was deontological, not utilitarian. And complicity in a moral harm is still immoral under a deontological understanding of ethics, even if that complicity has no consequential impact. If I assist in a murder, I am morally culpable regardless of whether or not that murder would have been committed without my help. So while my eating meat might not directly contribute to more suffering, my complicity in that suffering is still unethical.
I hope I've made a convincing case for why eating animals, or at least those that people eat most, is wrong. I myself have been convinced by people who have written in favor of animal rights. But as a lover of meat, I am now forced to ask myself, “What should I do?” and this is where I’m caught in a syllogism: morality itself is an attempt to answer the question of what people should do. So insofar as my question is, “What should I do?" the answer necessarily is, “That which is moral.” As a result, I think I’m stuck being a vegetarian. With any luck, one of you might convince me that I’m wrong. Please try, because I start Monday.
9 comments:
What's interesting is I actually had this type of conversation with my team today about the ethics of animal killing. Someone came to the conclusion that if livestock weren't meant to be eaten, they would also not be meant to live. But then I thought, wouldn't it be better if they never lived in the first place then? Which then could kinda go back to the whole issue of abortion in a way, since I'm thinking "never having existed and not knowing the pain is better than having existed and knowing the pain". But then again, animals could mate in the wild and live peacefully without being eaten too.
In the end....I do not have good answers to justify eating meat-- unfortunately-- Maybe i'll think of something tonight later while sleeping or something.
btw, do fish have feelings too?
Twas an interesting post as promised :)
Costco hotdogs are only $1.50
Nice title!
And yes, I agree that eating animals is a luxury and not a right, so it is totally up to the individual to determine if it's worth it. There are other reasons against meat eating too (especially cows), like carbon emissions and overgrazing and whatnot.
So are you gonna continue not eating fried food too? Good luck!
2nd bryan
but on another note, i think that your argument in the end states that the killing of animals is wrong and thus this topic should not be confined to just eating animals. It should include any products that are a result of the death of animals (leather, various ointments, shoes, etc). non of those products made from animals is at all necessary and in fact is a luxury. If you have concluded in the end that you should be vegetarian you should also refrain from buying and using that various products made from animals.
looking at it from a different perspective, evolutionarily animals eat and kill other animals everyday. though our conscience and ability to reason separates us from other animals, it is easy to see that in a grand history of life on earth that we are merely animals and we live to survive and reproduce. natural selection has shown us that in many ways we are dominant biologically. eating and using animals is just another one of these traits that our species has developed. You have noted that for you eating meat is just to have a meaty taste in your mouth, but in several ways it is much more advantageous to eating meat biologically. It is a much larger source of proteins than most plants and the nutrients that can be harnessed are much more useful since they have been processed. The argument of the fact that there are many vegetarians that are fine can be countered with the fact that meat eating is much easier and efficient for developing physically. Thus eating meat is not just about taste but more about us developing to be more advantageous evolutionarily. Not only that we have developed over millions of years to eat meat. Humans being omnivores are meant to eat meat. All together, this is natural for us as a species and members of the global ecosystem to eat animals, just as it is natural for animals to eat other animals. Sorry that was kind of jumbled but i hope it makes sense
i like this topic!
im glad you are really into the reasons behind a lot of people are for animal rights etc.. the main reason i was vegetarian (actually pescatarian) for a year was because of animal cruelty and i feel like people take advantage of their abilities. i would be okay with eating meat only if it was done for each individual like no mass production/fields of cows that are being produced for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten. if it was a matter of survival like how people used to hunt for their food back then, then it is definitely rational. i basically stopped though because of what you said about how me being one person can really not do very much if at all anything to reduce animal cruelty and slaughter and i figured that in a year of being vegetarian, i probably save a few chicken and half of a cow at the most. but its not a good way to think this way either because even if it is already killed, and not eating it would be considered a waste, it is still immoral and supporting slaughter by eating it.
now i just feel like a big hypocrite because i eat meat now. if it is hard to turn completely vegetarian though, i would recommend just reducing intake and trying alternatives when it is convenient. byebye
yeah i thought aboutthis a lot too and ive been trying to eat less meat, but some meats like korean bbq are just so freaking delicious. sometimes eating meat is neccessary to control overpopulation but i guess in this case it doesnt matter since we grow the meat just to kill it. thats sad. okay ill try to slowly turn vegetarian. but its totally doable cuz like 50% of my church is vegetarian and every sat i eat vegetarian food at my church and its delicious! maybe u should come to church me with me sometime. haha. okay good post! byebye
I've already responded to Alex's comments in person, but I'll include my response here also.
"You should also refrain from buying and using various products made from animals": This is true. I should refrain from using products made from animals. In theory my ethical beliefs are consistent; in practice they are not. But my inconsistency in application (like wearing leather but not eating meat) isn't a reason to disregard ethics altogether. And hopefully my next pair of shoes won't be made of leather.
"Humans being omnivores are meant to eat meat": There seem to be 2 parts to this argument. The first is that "it is much more advantageous to [eat] meat biologically." The second is that it "is natural for us as a species and members of the global ecosystem to eat animals, just as it is natural for animals to eat other animals." I will address both separately:
If eating meat is necessary for my health, I would do so without hesitation. Under the framework I presented, eating meat would be sacrificing a lower-value animal to preserve the existence of a higher-value one (a human). Were I a hunter-gatherer, meat would be vital to my staying alive. But given the availability of vegetarian food today, I don't think that eating meat is necessary to preserve my health.
You say also that "it is natural to eat meat." So the argument is, "What is natural is moral." Let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. Every organism's natural purpose in life is to reproduce. But I don't think this would justify rape in instances where a man cannot find a consenting woman for sex. Nor would it justify killing other humans of the same gender to reduce competition for mates. Yet we see these behaviors in animals; it is natural. Therefore humans cannot merely do what is natural. We are held to a higher standard on account of our higher intelligence. This makes sense: the more agency and awareness one has, the greater accountability one has for one's actions. Thus my ability to recognize what is unethical compels me to adjust my behavior accordingly.
Great comments.
Eating meat is wrong? Nothing could be farther from the truth. Life and death are intertwined, my dear friend. One cannot enjoy one without the other.
You start with animals feeling pain. This is inconsequential, as one can harvest delicious meat without triggering pain. Therefore, there is no reason to ask the question "Is the pain inflicted on animals justified by the marginal utility gained by humans?" If the pain inflicted on the animal is 0, then clearly the answer is yes.
I just thought of another awesome argument. Consider the fact that most animals we eat are bred to provide food. If it were not for us, they would not exist. No existence, no utility. And assuming they enjoy living, there is a net gain of benefit on their part.
Then you'd say what if their lives are not worth living due to the horrible conditions. I'd say that is a moot point. Almost everyone agrees that animal cruelty is wrong, but is killing always wrong? It is a much tougher question, but ultimately the best question to justify vegatarianism. I am a staunch opponent of animal cruelty but do eat meat. The two are mutually exclusive principles.
Is electrocuting a puppy wrong?
Yes
Is it wrong to euthanize my sixteen year old dog who cannot raise its head to eat?
No
The funny thing about these questions is that, I'm assuming, using your principles the answers would be the same because you aim to reduce suffering. But notice that under some circumstances, as you mentioned with self defense, it is okay to kill.
With that concession you open up yourself to many holes. If you defend yourself against a bear is it then acceptable to consume it? If you kill an animal with minimal suffering, is it acceptable to eat it?
To say that the animal suffers more than the human enjoys eating it woefully underestimates the amount of utility I got from that NY Strip last night. (or it overestimates the amount of pain the animal suffered)
Nevertheless, allow me to criticize the aliens coming to Earth example. First of all, asking whether any being or thing is justified in eating us, no matter how smart, powerful, or sexy they may be, the answer will undoubtedly be biased. Humans, for some reason or another, often prefer the preservation of their race to others. But that's not my main criticism. Ask people if aliens should eat us, the answer will be no. Ask people if we should eat dolphins, and most people will say no. Ask people if we should eat chimpanzees, and the answer will be no, etc. The point being, people say no because there is an appreciation for intelligence. If pigs suddenly became super intelligent, chances are people would start feeling uncomfortable eating them too. (I have heard they are pretty smart, though)
We could delve into why this is, though I won't go too deep. My theory is humans are selfish insofar as they prefer themselves to the exclusion of other creatures. I will not defend this notion. The point is, humans value intelligent animals because they express human-like qualities, in this case, intelligence. The overarching rule is, prefer that which is human. Protecting intelligent animals is simply a reflection of this. Additionally, the values you mentioned in your rationality paragraph are all human traits, and therefore, valued.
"Cannot animals also taste and experience the same wonderful sensations we do?"
No, they don't. At this point it's much more subjective, because we have no way of knowing. But I must admit, I have don't completely understand that paragraph.
Personally, the best argument for not eating animals, is that killing animals is morally wrong. The argument that killing animals is wrong because they suffer is quickly solved by a well placed bullet to the brain. No suffering, no harm?
I eagerly await your response. In the meantime, I'm going to get some KFC.
Thanks for the comment, Don Quixote. You’re apt to notice that I present two distinct arguments: the suffering argument and the killing argument.
I think, however, that both still stand.
Suffering: You say that a well-placed bullet to the head would kill without inflicting pain. The problem is that the meat we eat is not obtained this way. Those familiar with the process of raising and slaughtering animals know that an animal incurs severe suffering throughout its lifetime, right until the moment of death. Chickens are crammed into cages without enough room to spread their wings simply because cages are more expensive than chickens. Livestock are forced to stand in one place because fat is tasty and muscle is too tough. I might concede this argument if the meat industry treated its animals far more humanely than it does. Unfortunately that is not the case. So given the present conditions, the pain felt by animals we eat far outweighs the pleasure we gain from eating them.
Your “awesome argument” contends that inflicting suffering is okay because these animals would not even exist were it not for the meat industry. So your premise is that existence is better than nonexistence, even if that existence involves enormous pain. Yet you contradict this point in saying, “Is it wrong to euthanize my sixteen year old dog who cannot raise its head to eat?” because you then suggest that some life is not worth living. Indeed, I say that the lives we so generously grant to cattle and pigs are lives not worth living. A person cannot permissibly exploit an animal merely because he or she brought about the animal’s existence, just as parents cannot raise children to be their household slaves. So if your argument is that it is better to kill the animals that both exist and suffer on our account, I’d say that it is better not to bring about the existence of those animals in the first place.
Killing: You ask if killing is always wrong. I never made the claim that it is. In fact, I would defend killing animals if we depended on them for food (as our ancestors did), or in self-defense. But I would say that killing an animal solely for food when one can easily do without meat, even if that killing is humane and minimizes suffering, is wrong. This view stems from my understanding of value: animals have inherent value that should be respected, and respecting value means refraining from unjustifiably destroying that value. I don't think there was a direct response to this point.
I agree with your contention that humans are selfish. Unfortunately, this is a descriptive claim that has no has no moral relevance to the normative question of meat-eating’s moral permissibility.
Post a Comment