Should We Eat Meat?

Recommend (8) Comments (71)

This forum illustrates an interesting aspect of the "debate" between those who promote animal exploitation and those who oppose it. The former do not put forth any valid or even interesting  arguments. Unfortunately, it is not really a "debate" at all.

Let's do a brief review.

The Reason Foundation

The Reason Foundation argues that the universal adoption of a plant-based agriculture would condemn the world's poor to starvation. The Reason Foundation suggests that veganism is some elite privilege of rich nations and individuals.

The exact opposite is true. Although there are many political reasons that contribute to world starvation, it simply cannot be doubted that the inefficient use of resources required for animal agriculture is an important factor. For example, there is presently a food crisis in many parts of the third world. The reason for this crisis is that China and India are consuming dramatically increasing amounts of meat and grain is being diverted to produce that meat. The notion that the poor will be harmed by the adoption of a plant-based agriculture is ridiculous. Animal agriculture ensures that many of the poor will starve.

The Reason Foundation also argues that plant production is more environmentally destructive than meat production. Again, that is ludicrous. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has recently reported that animal agriculture is a more significant producer of greenhouse gases than is the burning of fossil fuels for transport.

So the Reason Foundation proposes two arguments that not only do not support its position but where the data support the opposite position--that we should not consume animal products.

The Center for Consumer Freedom

CCF flails around desperately, moving from arguments to rebut positions that I do not take to simple declarations that are not even arguments.

For example, CCF lectures us about libertarian philosophy in support of the notion that people should not be forced to be vegan. I defy CCF to cite one instance in which I have suggested to the contrary.
I have consistently maintained that this a moral choice that people must make. It cannot be legislated or forced; there must be a shift in the moral paradigm. So CCF's comments about John Stuart Mill are completely irrelevant because this debate is not about whether government power should be used to impose veganism; rather, it is about whether those who care about morality should choose to become vegan.

But the bulk of CCF's contributions can be characterized as nothing more than declarations that humans are superior and that it is ridiculous to suggest that humans cannot exploit nonhumans. When confronted with arguments that supposedly unique human characteristics cannot be used to justify the exploitation of animals as a moral matter, CCF goes running off and refuses to engage those arguments, preferring instead to make ad hominem attacks on those who gainsay CCF's  baseless declarations.

In fairness to both the Reason Foundation and CCF, there really is no good response to the arguments  against animal exploitation. The best argument that we have for killing 53 billion animals a year worldwide (not counting fish) is that we have the power to do so and we enjoy the taste. But a long time ago, Socrates, in Plato's dialogue, The Republic, rebutted the argument that justice is what is in the interest of the stronger.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University