Should We Eat Meat?

Recommend (11) Comments (2)

The notion that we should not eat meat or any products, including dairy and eggs, may appear to be radical and relative to our prevailing norms of behavior, it certainly is so. But relative to what we say we believe as a moral matter, it is not radical at all. In fact, when it comes to animals, our thinking is characterized by significant degree confused and delusional thinking, or what we call ‘moral schizophrenia.’

We all ostensibly accept the notion that it is morally wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering on animals. This moral principle is embraced by almost everyone and is so uncontroversial that it is embodied in the law of most nations through anticruelty laws. These laws are often contained in the criminal code and provide for the imposition of a fine or imprisonment in the event of violation. As a general matter, only those moral rules that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, such as prohibitions against killing other humans, inflicting physical harm on them, or taking or destroying their property, are enshrined in criminal laws.

There may, of course, be disputes about what constitutes ‘necessity’ but if this concept is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must rule out the imposition of suffering and death on animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. If these reasons are not excluded as justifications, then the moral rule is without coherence. We can see this in the human context. If we interpreted the widely shared moral principle that it is wrong to abuse children as allowing for an exception in the case of abuse that resulted in pleasure, amusement, or convenience, the exception would create a loophole that would render the moral rule meaningless.

The problem is that in the case of nonhuman animals, the overwhelming portion of our animal use can only be justified by pleasure, amusement, or convenience. Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. Humans kill an estimated 53 billion animals worldwide every year in connection with the production of meat, dairy, eggs, and other animal products. This number does not include the billions more of fish and other aquatic animals.

There is absolutely no necessity for this suffering and death. We certainly do not need meat or animal products to live an optimally healthy life. Indeed, mainstream health care professionals are increasingly of the view that animal products are detrimental to human health. Animal agriculture is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gasses. The only justification that we have for the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that it is just plain habit.

Our moral schizophrenia is illustrated in the 2007 scandal concerning American football celebrity Michael Vick. Vick was indicted on and eventually pled guilty to federal dog fighting and related charges and was sentenced to prison as a result of these matters. There was widespread and well justified condemnation of Vick for what he did with respect to the dogs. Everyone—including those who ate meat and animal products—condemned Vick. But how is what Vick did any different from what those who consume meat and animal products do? What is the difference between sitting around a pit and watching dogs fight and sitting around a summer barbecue roasting the bodies of cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, or fish? Vick apparently derived pleasure from or was amused by watching dogs fight; those who eat animal products derive pleasure and amusement from ingesting those products. The fact that others are paid to do the killing in the latter situation is irrelevant in terms of the moral justification for the imposition of suffering and death. In both cases, the purported moral justifications are identical and must be rejected for precisely the same reason.

Many of us live with nonhuman companions. We love those nonhumans and we treat them as members of our families. We worry about them and often rearrange our lives in different ways to accommodate them and to ensure their well being. We take them to the veterinarian when they are ill or when they need to have their teeth cleaned. When they become ill, we often go to great lengths to get them well. When they die, we grieve them, sometimes for extended periods.

There is, of course, absolutely no difference between the dog or cat who is a member of our family and the cow, pig, or chicken into whom we stick a fork and who we put into our mouths, chew, and swallow. Nevertheless, we act as though there were a difference.

In sum, you may think that a veganism is strange or bizarre. It isn’t. What’s strange and bizarre is that we aren’t vegans.

I am providing below an educational pamphlet that I did with my colleague, Anna Charlton, which concerns animal use and 'necessity.' I am also providing an editorial that I did for the Philadelphia Daily News entitled, "We're All Michael Vick."