Should We Eat Meat?

Recommend (10) Comments (7)

The points made by CCF illustrate appallingly bad logic.

First, CCF argues that humans are "special." Humans certainly do have particular abilities that other animals lack, but not all humans have those "special" abilities. Moreover, other animals have abilities that humans lack. We declare--in a very arbitrary way--that the characteristics that humans have are "special" and we conclude that humans therefore have greater moral significance. But that is a declaration and not an argument.

Humans can do calculus and write symphonies but so what? Why is the ability to do calculus or write symphonies relevant to moral significance? Why are these abilities more morally important than the ability to fly without the aid of a airplane? And many humans cannot do calculus or write symphonies. Indeed, many humans lack reason and the ability to use abstract concepts altogether. Such deficiencies may be relevant for certain purposes but they are completely irrelevant to the question whether we should use such humans in biomedical experiments or as forced organ donors.

So unless CCF wants to take the position that smarter people have greater moral significance than those who are less intelligent and that the latter may be treated as resources for the benefit of the former, the argument about "special" abilities goes nowhere.
.
Second, CCF claims that we should not accord moral significance to animals because they cannot understand moral significance.

Again, a very poor argument. There are many human beneficiaries of rights--children, the senile, the mentally differently-abled, etc.--who may not understand rights or any other notion connected with moral philosophy.

So what? The issue is our moral obligation not their level of comprehension.

Third, CCF argues that we should not force anyone to become a vegan. I have certainly never argued to the contrary. The decision to reject the violence entailed by consuming and otherwise using nonhumans must be a matter of moral choice. This is not to say that the morality of veganism is a matter of opinion. It is not. There are no sound arguments in favor of the continued exploitation of nonhuman animals, as the statements put forth by CCF and the Reason Foundation demonstrate rather clearly. But it would not be feasible to try to legally prohibit the consumption of animal products given that most humans presently consume them. When our society shifts to veganism, which is inevitable for ecological and health reasons if not compelled by coherent moral thinking, the law may play some role in enforcing prohibitions on exploiting animals. But we would need a great deal of societal agreement and a shift in the moral paradigm before such prohibitions become feasible.

I certainly do agree that animal advocates such never use violence of any sort to advance the cause of animal rights. Violence is the problem, not the solution. The solution is not to participate in an unjust institution and that is achieved by embracing veganism and educating others about the moral imperative (on multiple levels) of veganism. The arguments in favor of veganism are compelling and many people respond very favorably when these arguments are presented in a coherent and non-confrontational manner.

Fourth, CCF states:  "According to the OSU study, even a completely vegan U.S. diet would result in the deaths of 1.2 billion animals every year. That's more animals than would die if we were eating a meat-based diet skewed heavily toward ruminant animals (cows, calves, sheep, and lambs)." I assume that the "OSU study" is the one by Steven Davis published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics in 2003. Davis's paper has been thoroughly discredited in the response that is appended below. The bottom line is that Davis's article rests on patently flawed assumptions and methodology.

Fifth, CCF argues that because humans are omnivores, we ought to eat animal products.

Again, a bad argument. We are omnivores in that we can eat animal products.  But so what? I am biologically capable of injuring others who are weaker than I. Ought I to do so? Of course not. A biological fact cannot prove a moral confusion.

We certainly do not need to eat animal products to be optimally healthy. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that animal products are detrimental to human health. This means that we have a moral choice. Saying that we can eat animal products does not mean lead to the conclusion that we ought to do so.