Since becoming a vegetarian two years ago I’ve come across various justifications for why I should see eating meat as morally permissible. I have yet to be convinced that any of these proposals are morally acceptable. Here, I focus on three main justifications for eating meat and offer some responses as to why I do not find them compelling. I will simplify the justifications and attempt to be as charitable as possible as to the different ways the meat-eater can respond to my concerns. These are only three of the many justifications I have heard and I will try to take on other justifications in the future. Most of the arguments given to justify the eating of meat can also be used to justify the eating of live human babies and humans with cognitive impairments. I’ll try to articulate why I find this to be the case in what follows. If I am correct it seems that the meat-eater is committed to the moral permissibility of cannibalism.
The first justification: (1) Animals taste good and they are dumb so I am justified in eating them.
Everyone that has talked about the ethics of eating animals has come across a variation of this sort of argument. An animals’ taste coupled with its diminished cognitive capacity justifies our consumption of it. I’m not buying it!
I offer the meat-eater this question; If I thought that humans were tasty is that justification to kill and eat them? One could appeal to the fact that humans are high functioning beings and say to me; of course not, Justin, you’re being ridiculous. Humans have higher order consciousness; they have goals, morals, and most importantly they have the ability to reason at a higher level than all of the animals we eat. This makes it the case that we ought not eat humans by virtue of them being a member of this higher order. My response – I’m still not buying it, here’s why.
Let’s assume it’s morally impermissible to eat humans because they are high functioning. Well, what do we say about the humans that are not as “high functioning”, how about really low functioning human beings suffering from any number of brain disorders? Can we eat them? How about babies—they barely function at all, at least not in the same way as we function and they aren’t reasoning the way other, older mammals are. Surely it’s not morally permissible to eat them, or is it? Further, does this suggest that any being that is higher functioning than another is justified in killing that being for food? If so, then it seems that higher functioning humans are justified in killing lower functioning humans. This seems much more radical than the vegetarians position.
So an attempt to appeal to higher functioning as justifying our meat-eating practices gives us some unwanted results. Mainly, that the people in our society with the highest brain function become more valuable than the rest–this seems flawed on many levels. Even an appeal to a threshold view, meaning that value is equal once a certain level of cognition is reached, still leaves us with weird results. New born babies and even children until the age of 3 do not function as high as a pig. “Pigs have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than] three-year-olds,” says Dr. Donald Broom, a Cambridge University professor. An appeal to higher functioning or reasoning processes gets far too messy. We get unwanted results—this can’t be an appeal worth wanting. What follows is that we can eat lower functioning humans. But, one may want to bite that bullet—I am not one of those people, hopefully you’re not either. Now that we have seen that an appeal to higher functioning doesn’t work on its own to justify meat-eating it seems that we’re in need of a more robust form of justification, let us consider 2 more.
(2) A natural part of being human is to eat meat. Since it’s in our nature to eat them I am justified in eating them. Usually after hearing this justification you will hear things like “why do we have the type of teeth that we do if not to eat meat”? Ah, the naturalistic fallacy. This is directly connected to the ‘is-ought’ problem that David Hume made famous in the Treatise. Again, I’m not buying it!
Just because we’re equipped with the tools to eat an animal does not make it right. This seems obvious, but I’ll offer a counterexample to those that find it convincing; I’m equipped with the tools to harm a child or handicapped person, and if I decide to do it am I now justified?— Does me having the tools to perform the action justify the action? Surely one does not want to accept the baggage that comes along with this line of reasoning. Again, one may want to bite the bullet and say things like; men are stronger than woman, men have the ability to hold women down, therefore it’s natural for men to rape woman. The list of these outlandish conclusions is endless. So, unless you’re willing to adopt the baggage that comes with this line of reasoning it seems you’ll have to find different justification to eat animal flesh. Let us consider one more justification.
(3) Vegetarianism is unnecessary! As long as we don’t kill them the way they get killed in factory farms we’re justified in eating them. In other words, as long as their death is painless and they are not tortured before ending up on our plate then it’s justifiable to eat them.
While it does seem less objectionable to consume meat in this sort of way it seems wrong nonetheless. Again, let’s consider humans. If I grabbed a baby (or any cognitively impaired human being) while it was sleeping and injected a high dose of a drug that would simultaneously comatose, numb, and kill it, assuring that it would not feel any pain, would it then be permissible for me to do? Intuitively, I think most would say no (including meat eaters). And if so, isn’t the meat-eater being inconsistent? On what grounds is it wrong to kill another human being (especially those suffering from cognitive impairments do to bad luck or age)? Whatever answer one will give seems to be applicable to most animals as well. Is the meat-eater that appeals to one of the above mentioned justifications committed to the claim; it is morally permissible to kill and eat cognitively impaired and younger human beings because we like the taste of them, or because we are stronger than them, or because it’s natural for us to eat them – just look at our teeth (even though other options are available)? In other words, is the meat-eater committed to the moral permissibility of cannibalism?
Thoughts?
A Philosopher's Take 
Jester Who-ver
May 29, 2012
What’s your justification for killing and eating plants?
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
May 30, 2012
Thanks for the question, Jester. I’ll be posting later today with a more detailed answer and further justification for why I think it’s better to choose plants over animals when making our meal selection (there I’ll argue that most people feel the same way but rarely act in accordance with their value commitments with regards to meals), but, in the spirit of not leaving you hanging I’ll quickly respond.
We all must eat to survive. My generic justification is that I must eat something in order to survive and flourish as a human being. But the more important question is; what should we eat given the wide range of options we have in the western world?
Since I must kill something in order to survive, it seems that it would be better to kill something that has less value (less does not mean that it has NO value at all). Here, I think it’s important to consider both intrinsic value and instrumental value, and this is where I think I went wrong when I ate meat for 25+ years. To put is succinctly; I value the life of an individual animal more than I value the life of an individual plant, and, since I MUST kill in order to survive, I choose to end of the life which has less value–the individual plant.
An animal, for me (and most others as I’ll argue later) has more value because of how we can relate to it. That’s not to say that plants don’t have value and should be treated as if they weren’t alive (i.e. starting forest fires, clear cutting, etc.). I don’t think that this is an arbitrary choice either. I think that most people value relationships and this value dictates how we interact with each other. This is why you converse with your friends in most cases over a complete stranger. This is why you are more likely to give a friend that has lost his job a place to stay over the guy sleeping in the alley (generally speaking). And, as I’ll argue, this is why we should kill a plant rather than kill an animal if it’s true that we must kill something with value in order to flourish. Think about it, if you have to choose to save one life and you have to kill one person who do you choose? Both lives likely have value but assume that one is your wife and the other is a complete stranger. Most would choose to save their wife (assuming they love their wife). That’s not to say that the strangers life has NO value but that your wife’s life has a bit more. I take that train of thought when thinking about what I should eat.
There are lots of reasons for one to be a vegetarian, but, since you asked me the specific question I’ve tried to answer from my own perspective. I’ll fill in the details later and offer some justifications as to why choosing to consume plants is a more intuitive approach to our food selections and more in line with the way we make judgements on a daily basis when compared to consuming animal flesh (in most cases).
One more thing. Many vegetable and fruit producing trees/plants are not required to die in order for us to consume the vegetables and fruit from them, above, I was working with the assumption that we consume the entire plant–which, for the most part, is not the case. But for the sake of argument I entertained a world in which we MUST kill the plant in order to derive nutrients from it.
LikeLike
Dave B.
June 1, 2012
Justin,
It seems to me your response to Jester in regard to eating plants not animals can be used to distinguish eating non-human animals not humans, allowing non-human meat eaters (now that sounds weird) to make a clear moral distinction. You write, “Since I must kill something in order to survive, it seems that it would be better to kill something that has less value.” Seems reasonable, you value an individual animal more than an individual plant, and since you have to eat something, you choose to end the life of that which you find less valuable. What I am wondering is why we can’t use the exact same reasoning to distinguish eating non-human animals and eating humans. For the most part, we can relate to other humans more than to non-human animals, much in the same way we can relate to non-human animals more than to plants. Thus (using your own scale) we have shown that humans have more value than non-human animals (which still have value of course, just not as much). Whether you think this justifies eating the meat of non-human animals is another matter, but it does seem you have demonstrated how one can draw a moral line between eating non-human animals and eating humans.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 1, 2012
Thanks for the comment, Dave.
I think you’re absolutely right! The justification I gave for eating plants can be given by the “non-human meat eater” to show why they don’t want to eat humans. Let me try to clarify my point a bit, though.
The question posed in the post header asks ” are meat eaters committed to the moral permissibility of cannibalism”. So, I’m not suggesting that all meat-eaters would suddenly be forced to say that they ought to eat humans. All I’m suggesting is that the meat eater cannot say to someone who does want to eat a human that they cannot do so. Now for personal choices, they could appeal to the same sort of justification that I gave for eating plants. That would commit them to saying that they value the individual plant over the animal though (see my blog post later today for my reasoning as to why I think this is counter-intuitive and against most of our practices outside of food selection). I want to have a way of saying that it is morally wrong to kill and eat a human baby (or severely cognitively impaired humans of any age) when other options are available. I’m not sure the meat-eater can say that that sort of cannibalism is wrong, actually, I’m almost certain they cannot and any attempt seems to be an almost arbitrary appeal–but, I would love for people to take a stab at it (no pun intended 🙂 ).
Now, depending on which justification the meat-eater gives they could say it’s morally wrong to eat SOME humans (those that have goals, can reason, problem solve, you can fill in any of the reasons). This would allow them to be consistent when deciding to eat certain animals as those animals won’t meet the meat-eaters criteria. However, they couldn’t take a stand and say that it is ALWAYS wrong to eat a human without consent. They would be forced to say that it is morally permissible to eat humans without consent, specifically, those humans that do not meet the standards that allow them to eat animals.
I should also not that the justification I gave for eating plants does leave me open to the possibility of eating a human if there is NO OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE, but that would be the only case. I’m ‘ok’ with that scenario when compared to the multitude of others that the meat-eater must deal with(Virtue Ethics may also be helpful here to argue why I wouldn’t even have to accept the above mentioned scenario as a live option–but that would take the discussion in a different direction).
Also, if you engage in my above mentioned reasoning for food selection (response to Jester) then it seems that you’re now committed to not eating animals (if other options are available), or at least that’s what I’ll argue.
So, yes! The scale I gave can show why we ought not eat humans but that scale also says that we can’t eat animals. What you’ll need to do is show me how we can apply that schema to humans when other animals are available and ONLY humans, and not to the animals when plant options are available.
LikeLike
Jester Who-ver
June 1, 2012
Thank you Dave, you wrote that point before I could, haha.
You’ve given a good argument Justin. I especially like your point that we don’t have to kill the entire organism of most plants in order to eat from them; however, I disagree that plants are less valuable than animals. They give us medicine, oxygen, and beauty. If you’ve never climbed a tree, or grown a house plant, than I can see how you are unknowing of the relationship possible between a human and a plant. In light of this, your value scale can’t apply to a person like me, as I see the same value in humans, animals, plants, insects, and all. If I were to only eat what I view as less valuable, I’d starve, as my life holds no more value than any other.
Some unrelated points about this topic… Eating human flesh is generally unhealthy unless it has been farmed to be free of any and all pathogens, because humans are more at risk of contracting human diseases over, say chicken diseases. Also, eating a diet of only plants gives one various kinds of vitamin and mineral deficiencies, in which said person must consume, most likely, synthetic vitamins and minerals, which are generally more unhealthy than the natural counterparts. Even if the supplements are natural, they are likely not in a natural state, which makes it difficult for the body to fully synthesize them (I could also go into the whole GMO danger with a vegetarian diet, but I’ll refrain, because our current livestock farming practices aren’t any better). Then we have the fact that most of our food animals would not exist if it wasn’t for us farming them; if no one ate these animals, they wouldn’t be farmed, and thus not here kill. Also, if everyone stops eating meat to follow your moral virtue, how is it ethical to put all those farmers out of work? (This last point is for arguments sake, as I wholly do not agree with the industrial agriculture method of food producing.)
And finally, how do we know that animals haven’t given their consent to be ate? From a strictly indigenous way of thought, it’s like you stepping in front of a bullet to save a sibling. Yeah you’d rather not, but if you have enough love, and they need you, then you’d do it. I say it’s all about the respect you give the organisms of this planet, and which reality you choose to inhabit.
I love this kind of exercise, hahaha…
LikeLike
paulhughes2014
November 12, 2014
Jester, I am very interested in your comments and iike your logic. However, as a nutrition expert I have to take issue with you that eating a diet of plants gives one various kinds of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. This is completely untrue. If you go to the websites of every major national nutritional board you will see that they ALL agree that a vegan diet (I am not vegan by the way) can supply ALL nutrients needed at all stages of life. You do not need to take vitamins or minerals if you do not eat meat or meat products. Also what is your comment about GMO aimed at? You do not need to eat any GMO foods as a vegan.
Finally, your comment ‘how do we know that animals haven’t given their consent to be ate (sic)? Are you serious??????
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 2, 2012
Thanks again for the comments, Jester. I’ll only respond to the concerns you voiced about plants that were directly related to the post.
You said; “I disagree that plants are less valuable than animals. They give us medicine, oxygen, and beauty. If you’ve never climbed a tree, or grown a house plant, than I can see how you are unknowing of the relationship possible between a human and a plant.”
I never made the general claim that all plants are less valuable than all animals. I only claimed that an INDIVIDUAL plant is usually less valuable than an INDIVIDUAL animal. Further, I never claimed that plants are not valuable–I think they are–very much so!
I do think that MOST people do see plants and animals as I do. Think of this example; you’re driving in a train that’s traveling at 1000 mph and you see a pig on the tracks, you could pull a lever that diverts the train onto another track for a brief second but on that track is a bean plant (you’ll still arrive at your location at the same time). If you hit the pig it splats all over the place ending it’s life leaving it’s young behind to fend for themselves. If you smash into the bean plant you kill the plant. It’s my intuition that most people would divert the train and kill the bean plant. If this is so than this suggests that we value the lives of pigs over bean plants and in most cases we’ll choose any animal over the plant. We also have animal cruelty laws in 43 states and in Canada yet there are now laws against the treatment of plants. All of this suggests, at least to me, that we, as a society, value the lives and treatment of animals more than we value the lives of INDIVIDUAL plants. Yet, people choose to end those lives for food when they could eat something they see as less valuable. Seems very inconsistent to me.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 10, 2012
This is amusing. If I were driving the train in this scenario, I would first determine whether on not the pig would derail the train – killing humans on board. If not, then I would not worry about diverting the train for the pigs’ sake, I might honk the horn to scare it off of the tracks, but, ultimately, it’s the pigs problem. Sounds like ham for dinner to me… 🙂
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 11, 2012
I wrote a more detailed and longer version of this post for an graduate seminar focused on ethics last year. In that longer piece I detail that the train would not be damaged at all by either the bean pot or the pig.
But, why would you honk the horn to scare it off the tracks? Does this suggest that you would rather not kill it?
How about a baby that has been left there because it is unwanted by its family because it’s ugly (Benjamin Button status), Would you divert the train for the baby? If so, why?
I agree, it is the pig’s problem, just like it would be the baby’s problem. However, if we are in a position to simply flip a switch (as in the trolley case) to avoid the death of a pig I think most would do it. In fact, I think most people would look at the person who does nothing and watches the pig get blasted by the trolley car as if they were mentally ill. Think about it, all jokes aside, if someone would not slow down and actively runs animals down with there car when they could have done otherwise we would call it animal cruelty.
43 states in the U.S have laws protecting the lives of animals against cruelty. This suggests that many in the U.S care about animals. I think it’s a fair assumption to think that many would see it as odd to not hit the switch in the trolley case.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 12, 2012
Hello again my friend. So many questions and such limited typing ability … oh, well, I must try.
(1) Why would I honk the horn? Two reasons; first, to give the pig a fighting chance. I’m not (entirely) heartless. Second, because train whistles are loud, really loud, and watching that pig get its wits scared out of it and running off of the tracks at 200 mph would be hilarious, almost as hilarious as the image you have inadvertently given me through our conversations on both my blog and yours of a pig playing video games on some train tracks and – as you put it – getting blasted by a train. I have been laughing all day over that one. It even entertained several of my workmates.
You know, that’s got to be one of the best ways in the world to die. I hope that when it is my turn to go that I am hit by one of those trains in Japan that travel at 300 mph and I am totally blasted to smithereens and little chunks of me come raining down over a 500 square yard area and there are a bunch of teenagers standing around watching it who get covered with me and say, “Whoa, dude. That was totally awesome.”
Self Human Combustion is another favorite of mine. Just like, “OPA,” and you’re gone. Going out with a bang so to speak.
(2) Baby on the tracks: This comparison between a pig on the tracks and a baby on the tracks is so far apart in my mind as to not even be reasonable. Of course you divert the train for a baby! You also stop the train, get out of the train, help the baby, call the police, etc.. Crushing a baby with a train when it could have been avoided would leave me with life long nightmares and a fear of a negative judgement day scenario, while “blasting” a pig would leave me with a hilarious lifelong story to tell everyone I met. The last second expression on that pig’s face would be utterly priceless…
(3) Think of all of the people who kill animals for fun, sport and livelihood. There are hunters, slaughterhouse employees, butchers, people who make leather goods and fur coats. There are scientists who test drugs on animals, cosmetic companies who test on animals. Are these “bad” humans? They could abandon these pursuits. But, they don’t. Yet animals needlessly suffer through their efforts. Have you ever seen a deer with an arrow through its chest running and jumping and spurting out blood with every step? How about the look in a cow’s eyes when the slaughter house employee cuts through about 12″ of its throat? These animals aren’t thinking, “at least this is humane.” 43 states and their laws … I call bull crap!
There are so many more directions that I can take my argument here, but consider this; you and your children and their pet pig are starving. Death for your children is mere days away. The only thing available to eat is the pig. The only means you have to kill the pig is a hatchet, and it will take 30 – 40 blows with the hatchet to kill the pig, all the while it will be suffering and screaming. Will you do the deed?
I say that everyone will kill the pig in this scenario. Therefore, your convictions are limited. Why have them at all if, when the strongest challenge comes to pass, you will abandon them? Ultimately, isn’t that hypocritical?
Look up the percentage of animals who are taken to the Humane Society that get “put down,” you may be shocked.
Ask your friends who believe the way that you do, “how much money did you contribute to the cause of the prevention of cruelty to animals last year? What percentage of your overall income was that?”
Did they provide any vegan meals to a local food shelter, church, or needy family – ever?
Justin, I’m just not sold here, my man.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 12, 2012
Hey Shan, thanks again for the thoughtful response. Where do I begin? Let’s start with section (1) of your response.
(1) – To give the pig a fighting chance. Why do you want to give it a chance? Seems like you care (most would divert the train). If you really wanted to “give it a chance” you would flip a switch and the train will be diverted. It takes an equal amount of effort to flip the switch and honk a horn. I think this suggests that you would in fact divert the trolley. Whether you’re refusing to admit to that for sake of argument or not I’m not sure, but, it’s incoherent to me as to why you would honk a horn but not flip a switch if you cared to give it a “fighting chance”.
As to your comments regarding watching a pig or any other animals get mutilated unnecessarily, I’ll let those remarks speak for themselves – disturbing.
(2) – “This comparison between a pig on the tracks and a baby on the tracks is so far apart in my mind as to not even be reasonable”.You claim it’s not reasonable but why? Because you usually don’t think about it? You’ve offered no argument for why it’s unreasonable? In some of your other comments you’ve appealed to our (humans) ability to write history, to set goals, etc. Babies can do NONE of those things. Where is the value in their lives derived from? How are you not committed to allowing those who want to eat babies or severely cognitively impaired adults? What justification can you give for eating meat? I haven’t heard much in the line of a positive argument as of yet.
(3) – You call bull crap on 43 states having laws against animal cruelty? It’s a fact! I’ve done the research. As far as the examples you’ve given; yes, those actions are morally wrong. Clearly! It’s barbaric.
Response to your thought example: Yes I would do the deed and kill the pig, this is completely consistent with EVERYTHING I’ve said thus far both in this post and in what I have written in the past. We all must eat to survive. If I needed to eat a human to survive I would. We should select things to eat that (individually) have less value. The pig has less value than my children. Another child has less value to me than my children as well. This isn’t radical. Most people value their close friends more than random people, that’s why we choose to spend time with certain peple over others. Same with animals. Most people value the lives of individual animals over individual plants. See my post regarding the Trolley case where I argue for that.
You’re in the minority with the humor you find in the mutilation of a sentient being for no reason other than to get a laugh. Abusing and randomly deciding to kill animals (and taking pleasure in doing so) is a symptom of mental illness (I’m not trying to attack you here, just trying to give you some perspective and some facts).
With regards to your comments surrounding the humane society; I’ve researched those numbers for a different project – terrible! I have some thoughts on how we could get those numbers down but that’s a completely different conversation.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with your charity scenario.
Overall, you’ve pressed a few issues but you’ve failed to argue for why a human baby should not be butchered for breakfast tomorrow. You’ve said it’s obvious and that it’s not analogous, but why? I’d love to hear some justification for the countless assertions you’ve made.
With that said, thanks for your comments. I’ve had hundreds of debates and I’ve heard all the arguments. I sincerely doubt that I’ll here something new here that will convince me that killing the life of an animal is better or the “better” moral choice when compared to killing a plant (most cases I wouldn’t have to kill the plant either in order to consume the vegetable or fruit.).
Most people continue to eat meat because they’ve been separated from the production of the slab of meat in the market or on their plate. It’s a shame.
LikeLike
cgurl03
June 13, 2012
From ChooseVeg.com:
Q; What about plants? Don’t plants have feelings too?
A: While it is possible that plants have sensitivities that we do not yet understand, plants do not have a central nervous system and it is generally agreed upon in the scientific community that plants are incapable of suffering.
Usually, this issue is not really raised as a concern, but more of an excuse or justification since few people truly believe that plants feel pain. However, if one really is concerned about plants suffering, adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet actually reduces the number of plants killed, since animals must be fed huge quantities of grasses and grains to be converted into small quantities of meat, milk, and eggs.
LikeLike
tylerjourneaux
June 6, 2012
Here’s an argument I can see somebody making: as St. Thomas Aquinas says “Now the proximate end of the human body is the rational soul and its operations” However, the proximate end of the animal body seems to be the rational soul and it’s operations, the difference being that animals do not have a rational soul. Thus, man eating animals would be to treat animals according to their proximate end (telos). Thus, eating animals would simply be ‘rightly ordered’.
Notice that this argument wouldn’t justify causing any pain to an animal in order to eat it, but it would suggest a moral difference between, say, silently and painlessly killing a man in his sleep in order to eat him, and doing the same with a sheep.
Of course, I have already composed a stronger argument for Veganism based on Catholic principles (which you can find on my blog), and I’ve also argued at length with vegetarians and vegans that without a Theistic framework for the moral language game their utilitarian standards are not very impressive reasons for their convictions. I suspect you might agree with that.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 6, 2012
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Tyler. I appreciate the different perspective. I’ll be taking a look at your arguments momentarily. Here are a few thoughts on what you’ve written here.
I am unclear as to what exactly the “rational soul” is. Your argument would work against mine for sure (assuming you could put forth arguments to substantiate the claim that A) a rational soul exists, and B) why animals don’t have one), but you’d be bringing in some metaphysical baggage (rational soul, God, etc.) that would take some further argumentation to justify and that may not be possible to justify without allowing for other philosophical concerns. Further, why do animals have no “rational soul”? What evidence do we have for such a soul and why don’t animals have one? Being brought up Catholic I can tell you that any philosophical argument for trying to prove the existence of such a soul will be quite difficult and any argument will also have similar
Now, you’re right in your suspicion, I agree that the utilitarian standards are not impressive reasons for their convictions and they result in absurd ramifications and quite unintuitive results. But I don’t see why a theistic framework is needed. It would only be needed to argue against other theists. I was targeting the run-of-the-mill meat eater who doesn’t have any religious convictions. A virtue ethical approach is the best approach but it need not be rooted in theistic terms. Instead of an appeal to Aquinas, I would rather extend the Aristotelian notion of a flourishing life to that of animals and the environment. Or, take more of a pluralistic ethical approach.
LikeLike
Anand
June 9, 2012
From my point of view, killing animals or plants for has two angles. One suffering and other the very idea of killing i.e., end of life. Animals have to suffer throughout life in animal farms. They have also to suffer during killing. Since, animals are sentient beings while plants are not. The question of suffering does not come in plant eating.
We can assume killing i.e., end of life equally wrong for both case of animals and plants. Even with this assumption killing of animals for food is much wrong compare to plant eating. When we rear animals for meat production, their life are not free will of nature. They are forced to live a is a will of human beings. They sustain their life on plant food which obtains from end of life of other plants. We slaughtered them for meat. So, we human being are responsible for both killing of animals and the end of life of plants which have been eaten by the animals. In case of vegetarian food, we are only responsible for end of life of plants which we are eating. Hence, from point of killing, vegetarian diet is morally much correct than meat based diet.
Hence from both angles, plant eating is superior choice than animal eating.
I have written a blog article on this issue.
LikeLike
Ψε
June 9, 2012
Yes. Then meat-eaters bring up Descartes’s view and compare our view that plants don’t feel pain to Descartes’s view that animals don’t feel pain. However, the meat-eaters don’t see one plain difference: Descartes’s view was baseless, while the view that plants do not feel pain is not.
All the experiments “proving plant perception” are not even scientific. When their experiments were repeated on metals, they found that metals feel “pain”. So can’t we use metals to make objects, such as the computer I am typing on right now? Simple, metals cannot feel pain, just like plants!
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 9, 2012
Good points, Anand. vegetarian lifestyle = less death, period.
LikeLike
Ψε
June 9, 2012
I totally agree with this post.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 10, 2012
It may be that you guys are in the minority here…. McDonald’s “Billions and Billions Served” Hamburgers are awesome!
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 11, 2012
I’ve eaten hundreds of burgers myself before tackling the inconsistencies embedded within the decision to eat meat a couple of years ago.
I am in the minority, as were those opposed to slavery and those that thought women and men should have the same rights. I can only hope that others realize the inconsistencies embedded in their web of beliefs when they decide to eat meat when other options are available and I can only hope that the masses will come to terms with the moral abhorrence of killing animals to survive as they did with slavery and women’s suffrage.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 12, 2012
Hey, Justin. First, allow me to say that I admire your intellect and empathy. I do enjoy an intelligent debate.
I am, however, by no means of the opinion that consuming animals for sustenance is equivalent to human concepts such as equal rights. Slavery is cruelty beyond measure, cows are steaks – no comparison. Humanity is at the top of the chain of life and everything surrounding us is a tool for our use. Trees = lumber and oxygen, plants = medicines and aesthetics, animals = meals and clothes, weeds and bugs = annoyances that are best eliminated.
If you want to promote the idea that animal life has value beyond becoming a meal then what shall we do with other meat eating animals such as Lions and Tigers and Bears (oh, my!)? Why should I be called to judgement and not they? Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist you can not deny that throughout history other animals have been a staple on the plate. There are scientists that will tell you that we owe the development of our superior brains to this fact.
Obviously, there is much more to be said on this topic. But you have called me to task on other issues as well and I must go address those now.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 12, 2012
Thanks, Shan. I too enjoy an intelligent debate which is why I decided to write on these controversial topics. I love the taste of meat and I’m hoping to hear an argument that convinces me that it’s ok and should be morally permissable even when other options are available. Now, I’ll give you a quick response but that’s all I can muster right now.
Everything surrounding us is a tool for our use? So, you’re arguing that everything has instrumental value and nothing has intrinsic value, right? You also claimed that “humanity is at the top of the chain of life and everything surrounding us is a tool for our use” (everything has instrumental value). What do you mean by the “top of the chain of life”? Are you appealing to our mental capacity? Our ability to not be killed by others? Before assuming what you meant and arguing against that I’d like for you to clarify so I can posit a specific argument against your position. This will save us the trouble of talking past each other. So, I’ll need to know why or hear an argument for why slavery is “cruel beyond measure” as well.
Now, with regards to Lions, Tigers, and Bears (nice touch “oh my”), what shall we do? Well, the same we do with regards to humanity suffering, we do what we can. But, with regards to being called into judgement I’ll appeal to your cognitive capacity and your ability to reason at a high level. You KNOW that you have other available options that will sustain you, I’m not convinced that lions, tigers, and bears do. So, without having that knowledge they don’t get blamed. In academic circles dealing with moral responsibility this is known as the epistemic condition. Very young children and animals are unable to reason at a high level and figure these sorts of problems out which is why we don’t blame them or hold them morally or legally responsible in the same way we do with human adults that seem “cognitively capable”.
With regards to evolution; one need not deny that throughout history animals have been a staple on the plate to claim that in the “Western world” it is morally wrong to kill and eat an animal if other options are available to you. I completely agree, it’s a descriptive fact of the way things were, but that does not justify or count as a point in favor of the claim that it should still be accepted. There are kids that are brought up vegan from birth and show no ill-effects or lack of nourishment (never mind vegetarianism which is much less restrictive). So, appealing to the past practices of humans is not support for the argument that it’s ok (NOW) to eat such food.
I’ll get to your other post a bit later as I’m going on a bike ride momentarily. Thanks for the response, I appreciate the dialogue.
LikeLike
paulhughes2014
November 12, 2014
Lions and tigers etc. are natural meat eaters. Their physiology and anatomy are designed to eat meat. Human’s physiology and antomy is in line with herbivores/frugivores so your comparison is incorrect.
As for the scientists that will tell you that we owe the development of our superior brains to this fact I think you are talking about the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis which has not only been proved incorrect but has actually been withdrawn by its original proponents.
Certainly meat has been eaten for about 2 million years by hominids but for approx 13 million years before that it wasn’t. Also the amount of meat eaten by humans until the very recent past is tiny and made up about 5 per cent of our diet. Even now 75% of our calories comes from plants and not meat. This has been shown in a recent study which puts humans only half way up the food chain.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 12, 2012
Justin, I am enjoying this exchange immensely. I hope that you are as well and that you are in no way feeling uncomfortable. That is not my intent. Please let me know when you feel it is time to “move on” or “agree to disagree” or what have you. Will you, please?
First, if you enjoy the taste of meat, then that in itself is enough of a reason to eat it. No moral conviction need be applied here. Save morality for situations where it is required of you like in instances where other humans are being effected – crime, discrimination, prejudice, etc… Not when you’re eating.
Second, no, nothing has intrinsic value. Everything and everyone only has a value as judged by, or how it provides to, others.
Third, our ability to reach beyond what can be immediately sensed is what elevates humanity beyond all other life forms. Passing on, and recording, our history, imagining and creating, reading, writing, mathematics, our Universe and the potential of other Universes and life forms outside of the Earth’s, space exploration, God and this very conversation are all things that separate us from everything else on Earth.
Fourth, slavery. We live a tiny little existence (70 or so years) within an infinite amount of time. To not have the freedom to live it the way we choose to … this should be punished as if it were first degree murder.
Fifth. Animals are, in fact, held legally responsible for their reactions. Consider the Pit Bull who looks at junior as meat and takes action toward that end … euthanized!
Lastly. “That’s the way it’s always been.” The reason I have cited this is as follows: Everything that we come into contact with, breathe, or eat develops us in many ways. Not just those obvious ones like “eating right makes you strong and healthy,” but also eating certain foods can make your body resistant to viruses and bacteria that might otherwise have killed you. There is a history to what we have eaten over time, we are the result, all 6.6 billion of us. Somewhere down the line someone was eating the wrong stuff and died off, we are the offspring of those that ate the right stuff. What we eat is time tested and true, not eating it is like ignoring your grandfather’s sound advice.
Listen man, if this is all because you are broke and can’t afford it, I’ll be glad to take you out and buy you a steak. 🙂
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 12, 2012
I’ll be sure to let you know if I’m uncomfortable or if things get too far or if I find that we’re talking past each other. I’m not feeling that way yet. I want to understand your position a bit more first since you haven’t offered much in terms of argumentation yet. With that said I’ll address your comments in order.
(1) – “if you enjoy the taste of meat, then that in itself is enough of a reason to eat it.” Again, I’ll appeal to the context of the initial post. What about human babies? If I want t eat babies is that enough reason to eat kill and eat them? If not – why? It seems that taste alone is not going to be enough for me to justify eating babies or cognitively impaired human adults. Now, you could bite the bullet and say, ya sure eat babies and other “people”. You would at least be consistent, but, that outcome is not something I’m willing to accept.
(2) – nothing has intrinsic value? Human life? If all I should care about is what they can do for me then why shouldn’t I enslave people so I can get free labor? I should be able to eat people if I wanted to then? SO you would answer the question I posed to start this post with a yes? Meat eaters are committed to the moral permissibility of cannibalism?
(3) – “our ability to reach beyond what can be immediately sensed is what elevates humanity beyond all other life forms. Passing on, and recording, our history, imagining and creating, reading, writing, mathematics, our Universe and the potential of other Universes and life forms outside of the Earth’s, space exploration, God and this very conversation are all things that separate us from everything else on Earth.”
Babies can’t do this. People with major cognitive disorders cannot engage in this conversation or do anything you’ve mentioned here. Where do they derive value from? Further, what about the things that animals can do and we can’t. There are hundreds of examples I could speak to here.
(4) – “Fourth, slavery. We live a tiny little existence (70 or so years) within an infinite amount of time. To not have the freedom to live it the way we choose to … this should be punished as if it were first degree murder.” Hey, we agree!! 🙂 People killing animals when they have other options should be charged with a crime as well. In 70+ years from now they’ll look at the barbarians of today similarly to the way we look at slave owners. Both are morally abhorrent!
Lastly, “What we eat is time tested and true, not eating it is like ignoring your grandfather’s sound advice.”
My grandfather was not eating the meat of animals that have been shot up with steroids and fed genetically modified crops (GMO) crops. Most of the meat available today has not been tested for generations. Further, if we used your appeal to the past as justification for the present we would never have made any progress. Women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the advent of fair/livable wages, all would not have seen the light of day (among countless other examples) if we appealed to the battle tested views of our predecessors. This seems like a faulty approach to try and figure out what we ought to do and how we ought to act. We’ve evolved to reasoning creatures with a higher cognitive capacity. It’s time we use our reasoning and evolved brains to realize how awful some of our barbaric actions actually are and how we no longer NEED to engage in the eating of animal flesh. It’s a travesty!
LikeLike
shangreene
June 12, 2012
Oh, man. I just wrote a lengthy reply, then hit the wrong button and it all went “poof.” I’ll have to get back to you, I’m pretty bummed about that and, besides, it’s almost 2:00am.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 13, 2012
Justin, I feel that you are setting a disturbing trend here. It seems as though every time we start talking about pigs you switch over to some human concept – slavery, women’s rights on voting, etc… And, now we are talking about babies on train tracks. There is something profoundly wrong with a need to use this image to get a point across – to me at least.
I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe what I do, I’m sorry that you do not feel as though I have. Believe me, I feel as though you have said nothing to hold up your side of the issue either.
Before we continue, please answer me this: Do you really see no difference between eating babies and eating pigs or is this just a bizarre form of argumentation? Explain why.
What would you do if a pig and a severely mentally retarded baby were drowning and you could only save one of them? Let’s say the pig was within easy reach but the baby was a bit of a swim away and it might be some risk to your own life to get there and save it. Further, let’s say the pig was your lifelong pet and you didn’t know the child. Well, the clock is ticking, make a decision or they both die.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 13, 2012
Shan. I’d be happy to answer you question, but, this will be the last time I do so unless you can further the discussion by offering some kind of argument for why you hold the views that you do. I’m bringing up human babies because the post is about meat-eaters not being able to say that eating babies is wrong because there justification for eating animals commits them to that weird and morally abhorrent result. You have not given me a justification for why it’s wrong to kill a baby, you simply pass the question back to me time and time again (please re-read the comments and the questions I have asked you and you’ll see that I have not received any answers or arguments that attempt to justify your position…). Now I’ll address you concerns (in order again as I have been).
(1) – “And, now we are talking about babies on train tracks. There is something profoundly wrong with a need to use this image to get a point across – to me at least.”
There is a need to use this image because it’s an image and an action that is entailed (or so I have argued in my initial post and in 2 prior posts on this very young blog) by the justification that meat-eaters give for why it’s morally acceptable to eat meat. Read the title of this post; Are meat-eaters committed to the moral permissibility of cannibalism?
So, if your justification allows for me to say that it’s ok to eat innocent babies then there is something very wrong with your justification. That’s the purpose of bringing in these examples. It’s call a recuctio ad absurdem. It’s a logically valid form of argumentation to show why the justification you endorse is absurd. Your justification for eating pigs/cows, etc. commits you to saying that I can eat a baby if I like the taste. If you disagree that you are forced to accept that conclusion then you must offer an argument for why you need not or why your particular justification does not entail such bizarre and morally unacceptable practices as permissible.
(2) – “I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe what I do, I’m sorry that you do not feel as though I have. Believe me, I feel as though you have said nothing to hold up your side of the issue either.”
First, you haven’t offered a demonstration of why you believe that humans matter and animals don’t. You did offer that we pass along history and we have the ability to set goals, but that criteria is not applicable to babies and cognitively impaired humans. They can’t do the things that give them value. You’ve claimed that the above mentioned abilities set humans apart from animals, for some people you’re absolutely right, that entails that I cannot eat them, fine. But what about those humans who can’t engage in the examples you’ve given to try and justify why humans have value? It seems that your justification does not include some humans and since it does not include them they don’t have value. You must supply an argument for why I can’t eat babies, an appeal to things like “it’s just unreasonable”, or “makes no sense”, or you’ll pass the question back to me. The justification for why humans matter is not sufficient to explain why I can’t eat those that cannot engage in the things you’ve identified as “setting us apart”. I’ve asked multiple questions in the comments thread to try and get you to give me a justification but they have been ignored thus far.
(3) – “Before we continue, please answer me this: Do you really see no difference between eating babies and eating pigs or is this just a bizarre form of argumentation? Explain why.
I see a difference. The same difference as plants and the pig.
When I see a pig I see a sentient creature that has feelings, that avoids pain, that is intelligent (more intelligent than a new born baby). I see an animal that shows love to its young and shows curiosity by engaging in complex tasks and form elaborate, cooperative social groups. I see a valuable life.
When I see a human baby I also see a sentient creature. It isn’t very intelligent yet but in time it has the potential to be as intelligent and often times more intelligent than a pig. That’s special. That’s a valuable life whether it reaches that potential or not.
So, is there a difference between the two. Well, yes. The pig has more intelligent and has the ability to do more things. Until the baby reaches the age of around 3 it will not have the same sorts of skills that the pig has. This suggests that any appeal to the intellect or cognitive ability of humans as a justification for not killing them to eat them will also be a justification for not killing the pig either. So we must appeal to something else. That’s what I’m getting at.
I would save the human baby over the pig because it has more potential to develop into a thinking more complex creature. Similarly, I eat plants instead of animals because animals are more complex creatures that feel pain, have social networks, seek pleasure, avoid pain, their behaviors often change when taken away from familiar surroundings and family. Consistent! I don’t think the meat-eater is consistent (see the 3 posts I’ve written about this for more details). Further, I’m appealing to potential. Any appeal to potential gets dicey when thinking about abortion. So if you appeal to potential for arguing why humans are more important you must also accept that the fetus is morally important, this commits you to the the claim that abortion is morally wrong. But I digress.
One more thought: You’ve claimed that nothing has intrinsic value yet a lot of what you’ve said implies that humans have intrinsic value. And, if you want to stick to your guns and say that humans don’t have it then the unanswered questions I posed to you earlier will need to be addressed. Mainly, why can’t I enslave humans? If they only have instrumental value (meaning value in what they can do for me), then why is it wrong to see them as working machines that can clean up after me?
Oh, and you’ve claimed that I have not offered an argument for my position? I suggest you re-read my 1500 word post and my other 2 posts regarding vegetarianism and the commitments of meat-eaters. I have offered multiple arguments and thought experiments to motivate my claims. I have also offered rebuttals to every opposing argument given in the comment threads as well as arguments against run-of-the-mill meat-eater positions in my initial post.
If you’re not convinced by them, that’s one thing. But to claim I haven’t offered any isn’t fair. On the contrary, you’ve made some assertions but haven’t attempted to argue for why we should accept them. Further, you continuously point to things and offer responses but when I answer them you shift the conversation rather than focus on why MY responses may not work.
You’ve asked me to let you know when we should call these conversation to a halt, I’m nearing that time. Unless you’d like to respond to what has been already written it doesn’t make much sense to take the conversation into a different realm. Let’s stay on topic and discuss specifics so we can move to further layers of argumentation. Moving forward without being clear about our positions is not a positive way to further the discourse. As always, I appreciate you trying to debate and further the discussion. I truly do! But, let’s be fair to each other by being clear about why we hold the views that we do and what is wrong with the answers that are given when we respond to one another. It’s frustrating to get no response when I’ve taken the time to consider your view, regardless of how faulty I find it.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Uday Kanungo
November 27, 2014
First of all Justin, I don’t think meat eaters are automatically committed to not say anything when they see cannibalism in progress. You yourself assumed in your very first post that if the scenario is to be generalized to the point that “you have to KILL to survive”, then you have to pick priorities, which depends upon the relative value of plants and animals and which appeal to you more. Using the same distinction, I can say that since I feel the relative value of a Human is much more than a chicken, I can refrain from killing a human being rather than a chicken, for example. I dont think that in your reply to Dave you have elaborated thoroughly on this. If you had, it probably passed over my head, and if it’s not too much trouble, you can enlighten me again.
Secondly, since you are always mentioning that there are always choices left for meat-eaters, I’d say that not everyone views this from a moralistic standpoint. The element of ‘taste’ and ‘nourishment’ is sufficient for anyone to indulge in meat-eating, and not everybody undergoes a change of heart like you.
LikeLike
shangreene
June 13, 2012
You must be a heck of a typist. I’m rather slow myself.
The answer you have sought from me is within your response above. You can not eat babies because of the fact that they will one day be adults and productive members of society.
Also, I believe that humans possess a soul – given to us by God – to the exclusion of all other life on Earth. I think that all considerations and efforts of morality should be applied to humans until we find resolutions to concepts like genocide, slavery, murder, child abuse, etc… It is a frivolous waste of time to entertain any other efforts in morality until all of these issues are resolved first – and they probably never will be.
Individual people have value to the overall group that they are members of, not to specific individuals – such as to you as a slave – and not intrinsically. So, slavery is out based on the concept that the group has need of individuals who are free to participate toward the betterment of the group and be rewarded thus by being a part of said group and its reaping of those rewards. Slavery also has psychological effects on people who witness its application, this can be damaging to the group’s well being.
Allow me to end by saying that I simply look upon animals as a food source. And, while I am probably not going to change, I appreciate your convictions – it’s nice that animals have such a strong advocate. I would, however, like to be welcome to come back to your blog and debate upcoming posts with you, so let’s call this one quits my friend – shall we?
LikeLike
Andy Morris
December 17, 2012
Before, I could not understand why Americans are so devout nation. I realize now that, thanks to God and the soul you can easily get out of such a logical impasse.That’s why you are the biggest consumers of the meet in the world.The ways of God are inscrutable.
Андрей.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 16, 2012
You are welcome to return, Shan.
Thanks for the back-and-forth.
LikeLike
Dave B.
June 16, 2012
Hey Justin,
I enjoyed the exchange with you and shangreene, though I have to agree many of the assertions regarding the superiority of humans over non-human animals were made with little in the way of argument. Also, I must add that invoking God and the soul into this sort of debate is far from helpful, both concepts have been so thoroughly hammered with criticism that to use either concept brings with it far too much trouble. As a rather conflicted meat-eater myself, I am all too aware of the many failed attempts to argue that eating animals is plainly permissible, though I am not yet convinced that eating meat is the barbarous, shameful travesty that you claim it is. Thus, to avoid having to come up with my own view as to why eating meat is morally permissible, I want to take a closer look at your reasoning, specifically how you are able to draw the line by eating certain living organism (having what you identify as ‘less value’) while not eating others. From earlier posts you have argued that the reason we can eat plant life, but not animal life is that we NEED to eat to survive, and given this need, we ought to eat those living organisms that have the least amount of value. Leaving this value distinction claim aside (though I am not convinced there are clear value distinctions to be made between plants and very simple animal life like mollusks or insects), I want to ask you why we are able to eat all the varieties of plant life available to us given that we simply don’t need to in order to sustain a moderately healthy life? Given the goal is to kill as little as possible those living organisms with value (just enough to live a healthy life), why aren’t we morally obligated to remove almost all the living plant life of the menu as well? Instead, we should be working diligently to construct a most healthy gruel (I know gruel is a rather slanted word, but that is what I am imagining) that will enable us to stop needlessly killing a massive amount of valuable plant life. I can agree with you that animals have more value than plants (though I am still not sure there is an unproblematic way to make this distinction), but given you do think all life has some value, why are we not morally obligated to eat that which is the least impactful on the life of all living organisms?
Now I can imagine a few potential responses. One might ask whether eating only the healthy gruel that I suggest would actually provide a reasonably healthy life. Given the advancements in nutrition, it seems such a gruel could be created (and if not, we still might have a moral obligation to work towards creating it, given the impact on life a vegetarian lifestyle has). But for arguments sake, let’s assume we need the sort of variety that one can only find eating a diverse vegetarian diet. This seems more than plausible, and in fact reminds me of a story about the Dalai Lama. As one would expect, the Dalai Lama was a vegetarian and dedicated to killing as little life as possible. However, at some point he developed a certain deficiency and his doctors insisted that he needed to add meat into his diet in order properly deal with the deficiency. That is, the doctors believed that eating meat was required in order to maintain a reasonably healthy life (though of course for a rather specific condition). While this may not apply to most everyone else (and it seems undeniably that overeating meat, particularly red meat, is quite detrimental to one’s health), it serves as an example that some people may in fact need to eat meat to sustain their health. This certainly raises the question what we mean by ‘need’ and ‘reasonably healthy life’, but it seems that in the case of the Dalai Lama, need and reasonably healthy life fit your use of these concepts when justifying the killing of plant life. Further, I don’t think it is a stretch to argue that a diet with at least some meat (say a portion of salmon once a week) is at least as healthy, and perhaps more so, than a diet without it. Whether the difference is enough to justify eating some meat in the name of health is perhaps doubtful, at least in most cases (and depending on your definition of reasonably healthy life), but there are surely cases where eating (some) meat is in fact significantly more healthy than not. Would your view allow for those who do require some meat to maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle?
But back to my primary concern, I am wondering what you think about my suggestion that, given the value that all living organisms possess, you are morally obligated to reduce your consumption and mass destruction of plant life, restricting your diet only to that which is needed to maintain a reasonably healthy life. Are you not obligated to eat (or at least try to produce) the healthy gruel that minimizes your impact on all valuable life? On this scale, perhaps eating a diverse vegetarian diet is also “barbarous” and “shameful” (though maybe not as much as us meat-eaters).
One last thing, I noticed a few posters resorting to the capacity of suffering as a way of distinguishing animal and plant life. I take it this is not the sort of measurement you rely on. There are numerous problems with using the capacity for pain and suffering as a way to measure the value and moral status of a thing.
As always, thanks to everyone for the engaging discussion!
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 19, 2012
Thanks for the reply, Dave. I think you’re quite smart “to avoid having to come up with my (your) own view as to why eating meat is morally permissible” as I don’t think it’s possible 🙂
With that said, let me try and answer the questions that you posed regarding my position (even though I have not detailed it here as the purpose of this post was to show that the meat-eater is committed to cannibalism). You and I have had enough discussions to warrant me giving you a formal response, so here it goes, for the sake of brevity I’ll only supply short answers.
Your first question; I want to ask you why we are able to eat all the varieties of plant life available to us given that we simply don’t need to in order to sustain a moderately healthy life? Given the goal is to kill as little as possible those living organisms with value (just enough to live a healthy life), why aren’t we morally obligated to remove almost all the living plant life of the menu as well?
My Response; Well, all the varieties of plant life will have less value than animal life because animals can feel pain and cognize similarly to the way that you and I can. Now, with that said I think you’re right. We shouldn’t be gorging plant after plant if we have already taken in enough nutrients to maximize our health. Since the goal is to kill as little as possible, it would be wrong to kill more than we need to live well.
Your second question; I can agree with you that animals have more value than plants (though I am still not sure there is an unproblematic way to make this distinction), but given you do think all life has some value, why are we not morally obligated to eat that which is the least impactful on the life of all living organisms?
My Response; Yes, we are morally obligated to eat that which is the least impactful on the life of all living organisms. And, farmed animals eat plants, and people eat farmed animals. This equals lots of deaths. Eating the plant cuts down on overall death when compared to eating factory farmed animals, or animals in general who also eat plants.
Your worries; With regards to the Dhali Lama; at some point he developed a certain deficiency and his doctors insisted that he needed to add meat into his diet in order properly deal with the deficiency. That is, the doctors believed that eating meat was required in order to maintain a reasonably healthy life (though of course for a rather specific condition). While this may not apply to most everyone else (and it seems undeniably that overeating meat, particularly red meat, is quite detrimental to one’s health), it serves as an example that some people may in fact need to eat meat to sustain their health. This certainly raises the question what we mean by ‘need’ and ‘reasonably healthy life’, but it seems that in the case of the Dalai Lama, need and reasonably healthy life fit your use of these concepts when justifying the killing of plant life. Would your view allow for those who do require some meat to maintain a reasonably healthy lifestyle?
My Response; then those people must eat meat in order to survive and live well. This is not the majority of people though. In recent years many children have been brought up vegan and vegetarian and have lived quite healthy. There is less obesity and the related health problems that accompany it. Also, I think that people in 3rd world countries that lack the ability to get grains and plant sustenance are morally permitted to eat meat if they need to. Same can be said for those with certain types of iron deficiencies. So yes, my view does allow for one to eat meat if eating meat is needed to live a healthy life. I’m not convinced that this is the case for most meat-eaters though. And, the recent surge in veg babies and those embracing this lifestyle points in the direction that many do not need meat to live a reasonably healthy life.
Your last questions; Am I morally obligated to reduce my consumption and mass destruction of plant life, restricting your diet only to that which is needed to maintain a reasonably healthy life. Are you not obligated to eat (or at least try to produce) the healthy gruel that minimizes your impact on all valuable life? On this scale, perhaps eating a diverse vegetarian diet is also “barbarous” and “shameful” (though maybe not as much as us meat-eaters).
My Response; I should consume only what I need to live a healthy life. I should consume around 2000 calories per day, and, I should consume the types of things that will provide my body with the means to sustain itself in order to have the energy to live well. I think that I will need a few different plants in order to do this. Further, if most plants have the same amount of value then it seems I could pick whichever one gets the job done.
Eating a vegetarian diet can be barbarous if not done properly, but, because of the value that animals have and the abilities that they have (relationships that resemble our own, feel pain, etc.) it’s not even comparable. Sure, I see the point you raise. Yes, I agree that taking more than I need is unethical.
Thanks again for the thoughtful comment, Dave. Sorry I couldn’t elaborate a bit more. It turns out that writing a blog is much more work than I had anticipated, but, these sorts of discussions make it worthwhile. Thanks again, and feel free to press me further.
LikeLike
Michael Dickens
June 20, 2012
Good stuff. I like it.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
June 21, 2012
Thanks.
LikeLike
John Woodard: Crazy Like A Fox
June 29, 2012
How about this? GOD told me eating meat is GOOD. It may seem simplistic, depending on one’s deontology/teleology…please forgive me. I haven’t cracked an ethis text in almost 20 years.
It is, however, faith based and I reject your reduction of “meat-eating” to “cannibalism.”
LikeLike
eideard
July 23, 2012
Straw man arguments but, nice try.
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
July 23, 2012
Straw man? How so?
This is a straw man (below), if I failed to show the meat eater position then please supply me with their position. As a meat-eater for 29 years I thought the reasons I gave were the reasons I ACTUALLY GAVE to justify it. And, I wasn’t alone in these justifications (I still here them all the time).
Straw-man:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.
2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
I did none of this. I offered legitimate positions and justifications that MANY (even most) meat eaters use to TRY and justify their position. If that’s true then my argument is not fallacious.
I think you’d agree that the arguments I offered to justify eating meat are the usual arguments so I’m not sure that the straw-man claim is warranted.
LikeLike
hadeelnaeem
August 11, 2012
Nietzsche would say, trust your instinct. Or that, it’s natural to hunt, kill, cook (or don’t cook) and eat. So why put a herd morality question to it?
LikeLike
Justin Caouette
August 11, 2012
Actually, Nietzsche was a vegetarian himself for most if his life. I think he would say that people eat animal flesh out of custom. Surely, that can’t be justification on it’s own. Nietzsche obviously didn’t think so.
LikeLike
Jeremy Nathan Marks
March 12, 2013
Hi Justin,
I enjoyed your post very much. I am a vegetarian who recently became a vegan and I have spent a lot of time thinking about why I have felt the need to make this level of commitment. I subscribe to many of the reasons you have mentioned above and I like your exploration of the ambiguities of argument. You are definitely a philosopher and I admire and appreciate that.
I think that the philosophical problem (if I might call it that) I am wrestling with is the question of moral limits. In other words: must I eat meat to survive? No. Can I procure a healthy and nutrient rich diet without causing suffering to animals? Yes. Is it even possible for me to consume many plants without the plants themselves being exterminated? Yes.
Ashley Montague wrote many years ago that the “seeds” (no pun intended) of immortality are in plants. Plants can reproduce themselves and continue to be nourished long after the original body has been harvested. If we care for and preserve plant life we can develop a harmonious relationship with plants that is even free from the use of harmful chemicals. Now, I realize I am speaking a bit broadly here but hopefully not vaguely. I have become very interested in methods of gardening and agriculture that do not rely on chemicals but admit that I have much research to do. Still, we do know from history that crop rotation and growing crops together is a way of preserving the soil and reducing the risk of insect infestations and blights.
Still, what I keep returning to is the elementary question: must I inflict pain in order to have a balanced diet? The answer is simply “No, I do not.” In my way of thinking, that is reason enough to never eat any form of animal product again. I also am exploring the link between veganism and pacifism, though I am not a pacifist yet (I realize that is a whole other topic).
I find that the moral responsibility of not inflicting pain is a compelling reason to make a whole series of life changes that includes what I eat, what I wear, where I live and what I do for a living and what I will not invest my money in as well. I am slowly working out the nuances of this perspective so that I can perhaps more systematically argue them. But one thing I do feel fairly confident about from my own study of history is that it is ludicrous to suggest -as one observer here has- that human problems can be solved without regard to the world human beings inhabit. Animal welfare and ecological conservation are intimately connected with the stability and long-term healthy of human civilization. And of course, how could we possibly prevent war and mass human suffering if we did nothing to address the need for clean air, clean water (readily available to all), and healthy food?
LikeLike
Hanna
January 5, 2014
Wow! Very good point!! I have been thinking about this the last few days because of something my friend said. I told her my cousin is vegan and she said, ” ewww that is disgusting!” I asked her how on earth that was disgusting and that is meat eaters should look in the mirror. Her response was that If you are a vegan then you aren’t gettin the nutrients you need. I’ve been thinking since humans are mammals and that the animals we eat are mammals that is classified as cannibalism. People say it’s just humans wrong humans but really that isn’t the case.
LikeLike
jarrod neville
January 10, 2014
Your arguments seem rooted in the judgement based valuation of life and not ending it in other organisms for the purposes of your survival. Shouldn’t you then consider a diet of things that have reached the end of their lives naturally? Eat oats harvested after dying instead of fresh lettuce? You could eat roadkill and carrion as well and still be in line with your moral objections to meatatarians. Perhaps you should invent a new “vulture” diet.
Jarrod #uofcethics2014jc
LikeLike
trueandreasonable
January 31, 2014
Your argument is an interesting one. My question is it the “killing and eating” that is wrong or just the eating? Lets say we see a dear being attacked by coyotes and chase them off but the deer still doesn’t make it. Can we eat it? Also if a person dies of natural causes can we eat them?
I think the fact that we don’t eat people highlights the traditional view that we treat humans as sacred. People want to reinvent non religious reasons for our moral intuitions but that’s going to cause inconsistencies.
That sacredness of human life tends to make the most sense of questions like why we can kill and eat animals but we can neither kill nor eat humans.
Ok just a bit of humor:
I once heard someone say “if God didn’t want us to eat animals he wouldn’t have made them out of meat.”
LikeLike
infamouscrimes
June 26, 2014
Justin pretty much covered it two years ago, but I will add a little clarification for the ideologically inconsistent animal killers.
You cannot justify the enslavement, premeditated killing, and raping of animals when you can derive all of your nutrition from plants. PERIOD. Plants cannot be raped, they cannot feel pain, they do not have brains. Using the excuse that animals lack language as a justification for their rape, torture, and death is EXACTLY the same justification that could be used to eat Terri Shiavo or any other human being with brain damage.
This is logic people. You have to use it to make a valid argument.
Plants do not suffer therefore a vegan has no moral dilemma when it comes to eating them. Do speciesists seriously believe plants can suffer without a brain? The very idea is absurd and it makes them sound just as dumb as invoking their fairy tale gods and goddesses. I did enjoy how Justin just said “thanks for playing” as soon as shanegreene invoked his credulous god justification. He should have just posted that first and saved me from reading the rest of his idiotic mumbo jumbo.
No one answered trueandreasonable’s post from January so I might as well even though this is pretty simple reasoning and doesn’t really deserve an answer. Yes eating roadkill is ethical. Why wouldn’t it be? Eating a dead human is also morally acceptable. There is nothing sacred about a dead body. I find meat disgusting and unhealthy personally so I have no interest in eating a dead raccoon when there are so many delicious fruits and vegetables to eat. Also I don’t find your stupid joke amusing whatsoever. How would you like it if I hung you upside down and slit your throat in front of all of your friends and family and ate you up with a smile on my face? Not so funny now is it? Put yourself in the animals place and please wake up from you delusions.
LikeLike
Alice J.
April 8, 2016
my defense for eating meat is this: While veganism and vegetarianism are preferable because they are a more peaceful way to live, the ugly truth is that we all* prioritize different lives based on our own hierarchy and veganism and vegetarianism are ultimately lifestyle choices based on privilege and security because when put in a survival situation most* people will choose to either take a life, or scavenge a corpse, if not to sustain their own self than to provide for their dependents.
*I say “all” and “most” because I think this applies to the vast majority of human beings. I am sure there are those who would rather die than take another life, and while I can respect this when it comes to the individual, I would consider there to be something far more morally suspect about someone who would let their own children go hungry before they would, for example, kill a chicken.
That sounds dramatic, perhaps. If it does, please look into the number of people on the planet living in poverty and dealing with hunger. Every person’s situation is different based on so many factors (their access to land to farm, whether or not they have to rely on food pantrys, whether or not they live in a developed or undeveloped nation and so on) so I wont try to make any absolute statements about when someone can or cannot afford to practice veganism or vegetarianism. Yes, on a large scale veganism is better for the environment and ending world hunger than meat-eating because of the allocation of resources but that is again, a large-scale point, and has little to do with the decision people have to face everyday when sourcing food for their family.
I will share my own life experience, however, to try and illustrate my point.
I have been an “on again off again” vegan for many years. I don’t stop being a vegan because I give into meat cravings and go to a steakhouse or buy a big block of cheese from the grocery store. I practice veganism or vegetarianism based on whether or not I am able.
When I have had to rely of food pantries to survive, what should I do with the meat they give me? You would think that I could simply ask for more rice or beans. You would be wrong. Many of these pantrys rely on donations from regional food banks and there is a lot of paper work involved in tracking the food they are given and who they give it to. There are exceptions, but many times you are given a sack with your groceries, take it or leave it.
When people ask my husband and I why we moved out of the city to start a homestead we usually tell them all these nice things about environmentalism and health. These things are all true but the ugly reason we keep hidden is that due to a series of events in our life we fell into poverty. We were fortunate in ways most of the urban poor are not, because I come from the country and I had family that was able to give us a plot of land. This is a big deal. This is whether or not my kids go to school hungry. I have a moral obligation to provide for them. Yes, there are such things as WIC (which does not provide a Vegan option in my state) or Food Stamps but they are not sufficient to provide for all a family’s needs and are designed to be emergency assistance not an answer to chronic poverty.
Why don’t I just produce enough fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains to feed my family a vegan diet from the land? Well, that’s the goal, but the reality is that space, time, and the weather all have to be factored in. Thankfully, rice, beans, and flour are affordable which largely does away with my need for space and time to produce them. Weather is still a huge factor. I’m not a perfect gardener. No one is. Some years things just do not do well. You may question whether or not I really, truly need a back-up to the vegetables and fruits I preserve for winter and the cheap grains and beans I can buy at the store. Just like people often criticize others for use of public assistance programs like WIC or food stamps, someone is always there when you claim to need something to question whether or not you really do, or to blame you for being in a situation where that need has arisen.
People often shame others for being poor. I often get a “pass” from this classism because I went to college, got a sensible degree, and others tend to view my circumstances as “unfortunate”. The truth is that there is no fail-safe against ever being food-insecure. Those who are born into poverty know this already regardless of whether society characterizes them as lazy or irresponsible.
I keep chickens. It wasn’t an easy decision to make, and listing all the reasons why my attempts to provide food security for my family without livestock invariably fell short would take up even more space in this already long comment. I evaluated my personal situation and determined I needed eggs to provide a reliable protein source for my family that was not dependent on whether or not we had a drought or a late freeze.
Do I kill my chickens? Eventually, yes, when they show signs they are nearing the end of their natural life, I have chosen to kill them as opposed to letting them be taken by disease, that way we can still use their corpse. Most of my life, I am a vegetarian, but every 7 or 8 years, this is a decision I make. I can grow fodder crops to feed my chickens to give them healthier more affordable food than mass produced chicken feed, I can give them free range, and a secure coop, and I know they have a better life with me than they might have had otherwise, but eventually I will have to make a choice between letting them die naturally and being unable to eat them due to possible infection or disease, or killing them.
Do I have the right to make that choice for another animal which is incapable of giving me verbal consent? No, but life isn’t entirely about abstract morality. Sometimes people have to make hard choices. We’re animals too, and we’re privileged to be omnivores, because you’re absolutely right that while we have the tools to kill and eat another animal we don’t have to exercise that ability, but we are able, so that if we are ever in a situation where we need that ability to survive it is there.
So what about cannibalism?
If you were to ask me, or I imagine most other meat eaters, if cannibalism is morally acceptable, their response would be “it depends”. I considered scavenger cannibalism done for survival, while highly highly inadvisable (see Kuru’s disease), to not be an immoral action because it does not involve actively murdering another human being. Now what about killing someone else to survive? That’s one of those awful life or death scenarios that no one can honestly answer unless they’ve lived it. I could tell you what I hope I’d do, but it is impossible to answer that unless you’ve been to the absolute brink of starvation.
So why do I hold that killing a human for the purpose of cannibalism is wrong and not killing an animal?
Because while I understand that animals are sentient, intelligent beings, capable of love, reasoning, and in some cases inter-species communication, and I would really rather NOT be put in a situation where I had to make this kind of decision, if I had to decide between a hypothetical human life and a hypothetical animal life with all other factors being equal (for example, i’m forced to choose between a toddler and puppy not Hitler and Koko the guerrilla) I will choose the human life. That’s just the way i’m hard-wired. Fortunately, I’ve never been in that situation. Regardless, if you can look at the toddler-puppy scenario and honestly cannot make a decision because you value both lives equally then we are fundamentally different on a deep neurological level and no amount of back and forth about ethics will ever change that.
We don’t criticize other omnivorous animals because they sometimes eat meat. We recognize that while living in the natural world they sometimes have to eat meat to survive but what people, especially in a developed nation and especially those who have never experienced homelessness or extreme poverty, seem to forget is that we don’t live in a world where human beings are completely removed from the reality of having to make that decision.
If you want a world where there is no moral grey area about humans eating meat you have to first create a world where there is never going to be a need. I do believe we as a species are capable of that and that we will get there if we commit ourselves to reforming our society to lift people out of poverty…but until that day comes when the money I could have used to buy food at the grocery store is all gone to medical bills, utilities, and so on and the food I have preserved for the winter is running low, I’m going to go to the local food pantry and if they give me meat, I am feeding that to my family without any agonizing over my morality.
LikeLike
Lage
April 8, 2016
“So an attempt to appeal to higher functioning as justifying our meat-eating practices gives us some unwanted results. Mainly, that the people in our society with the highest brain function become more valuable than the rest–this seems flawed on many levels. Even an appeal to a threshold view, meaning that value is equal once a certain level of cognition is reached, still leaves us with weird results.”
If this is the position you take, that is, that no threshold validates this view (not even eating a worm for example), then the flipside of this is that it would also not be morally permissable to destroy any kind of artificial intelligence that we may consider conscious (no matter how primitive that conscious state is). Doing so, even if a primitive form of consciousness in said artificial intelligence, say, with the cognitive equivalence of a mouse or a cat, would have the same value as any other animal with a brain that you think is immoral to kill and eat. I don’t think you could have one without the other, and this is only one reason that I reject your conclusion that higher/lower functioning or higher/lower level of consciousness is irrelevant to the moral evaluation of meat eating (even if it isn’t the only variable that needs to be taken into consideration, I’d say it is at least ONE variable that is relevant).
After all, don’t we grant special rights to humans that we don’t give to other animals? If so, why do we grant those special rights and moral priorities/obligations? What’s so special about humans? It can’t be our level of consciousness and higher functioning brains, and personalities, and so forth that result from said brain complexities (not by your reasoning it would seem)…But if these ARE reasons why we grant special preference for saving a human life over another animal’s life or giving humans special rights over other animals (and we don’t treat all animals equally as would any lower functioning human beings), then that contradicts your position a bit I think. If humans are granted special rights for any of the distinctions that people use to justify meat eating, then your argument falls apart here. At the very least, you’d have to concede that some threshold of cognitive capacity or consciousness is in fact justified for where we draw the line of what is permissible to eat.
Other factors that need to be taken into account are the other consequences of a person eating an animal that is cognitively equivalent to a human baby let’s say versus eating a human baby. Clearly the latter is going to have much more detrimental effects psychologically speaking, where on average there is some natural aversion to eating one’s own kind, especially with an evolved social species. Even taking the Naturalistic fallacy into account, one must concede that morality ultimately breaks down to hypothetical imperatives, namely, one ought to do above all else that which accomplishes the most fundamental goal — namely happiness/satisfaction or as Aristotle called it, eudamonia. If eating babies ends up detracting from our happiness much more than eating a cognitively equivalent non-human animal, even if by leading to secondary consequences such as our beginning to value human life less, that implies that it is more moral to eat the latter over the former. These kinds of evaluations can be complex, especially as we haven’t undertaken the kind of Science of Morality that is needed to answer many of these empirical questions. Nevertheless, we can draw moral conclusions of what we ought to do based on what facts we currently do have. In this case, it seems obvious from the facts that eating a human baby is less moral than eating a cognitively equivalent non-human animal.
Overall I would agree with the idea that vegetarianism is the safest bet in terms of the prior probability that it is the more moral position to take, especially if one doesn’t know what meat they are eating, where it came from, how the animals were raised/treated, their level of consciousness, etc. However, when one takes these other factors into account, I think that one can eat meat and still remain confident in the moral standing. I have hope that science will lead us to the answer someday, and more importantly, I’m excited about the cultured meat cells (e.g. Memphis Meats) and that industry development. Eventually, people won’t have to kill animals to get meat, but will be able to harvest meat cells without any brains, control the protein and fat composition, the taste, etc., thus allowing us to eat what we evolved to eat (and thus be healthiest), without the omnivore ethical dilemma that so many of us face at this point in time. I’ve curbed many of my food choices toward decreasing my meat consumption for ethical reasons, sustainability reasons, etc. However, when I do eat meat, I go for “lower animals” as it were such as fish and other seafood, followed by chicken, etc. Animals that aren’t likely to be having conscious experiences, autobiographical memory, etc. — the attributes that higher animals and humans have that we value so much in our decisions regarding empathy, fair treatment, etc. Interesting topic always!
LikeLike
Anonymous
May 11, 2016
In response to the claim that we afford humans special rights not usually offered to non-human animals, can’t we say (and many have) this distinction is simply based on speciesism? The distinction can’t be based on higher functioning capacities, as many members of the human species function at a level far below many non-human animals (often referred to as ‘marginal cases’). These folks lack, and in many cases will never develop, the capacities associated with higher functioning, and yet are afforded all the special rights of humans. If the presence of higher function capacities is a key factor in determining these special rights, how can we justify affording special rights to those humans that lack higher functioning capacities? Which leads to the original question, why can’t we eat those humans that fail to meet the threshold you suggest? Would have to hear what other reasons would warrant these special rights applying only to humans, but the higher functioning argument seems to fail, given marginal cases. Without any other justification, it seems the special rights afforded humans are arbitrary and unwarranted, supporting the charge of speciesism.
Also, I don’t see why one should accept that humans have a ‘natural’ aversion to eating members of their own kind. I am not sure how one could even support such a claim, at least in a way that rules out a purely social explanation. Further, are you suggesting that if eating babies doesn’t detract from happiness, then it is permissible to do so? I’m not sure this aversion claim provides the moral barrier you think it does.
Finally, I’m not sure what kind of criticism you are making with your point on artificial intelligence. It seems meant as a reductio criticism, but what would be absurd about the impermissibility of destroying artificial intelligence? It is not obvious to me that if we can create something with a capacity of intelligence and consciousness equivalent to that of a cat or mouse we should be permitted to destroy it at our will, with little or no justification.
LikeLike
Anonymous
May 11, 2016
In response to the claim that we afford humans special rights not usually offered to non-human animals, can’t we say (and many have) this distinction is simply based on speciesism? The distinction can’t be based on higher functioning capacities, as many members of the human species function at a level far below many non-human animals (often referred to as ‘marginal cases’). These folks lack, and in many cases will never develop, the capacities associated with higher functioning, and yet are afforded all the special rights of humans. If the presence of higher function capacities is a key factor in determining these special rights, how can we justify affording special rights to those humans that lack higher functioning capacities? Which leads to the original question, why can’t we eat those humans that fail to meet the threshold you suggest? Would have to hear what other reasons would warrant these special rights applying only to humans, but the higher functioning argument seems to fail, given marginal cases. Without any other justification, it seems the special rights afforded humans are arbitrary and unwarranted, supporting the charge of speciesism.
Also, I don’t see why one should accept that humans have a ‘natural’ aversion to eating members of their own kind. I am not sure how one could even support such a claim, at least in a way that rules out a purely social explanation. Further, are you suggesting that if eating babies doesn’t detract from happiness, then it is permissible to do so? I’m not sure this aversion claim provides the moral barrier you think it does.
Finally, I’m not sure what kind of criticism you are making with your point on artificial intelligence. It seems meant as a reductio criticism, but what would be absurd about the impermissibility of destroying artificial intelligence? It is not obvious to me that if we can create something with a capacity of intelligence and consciousness equivalent to that of a cat or mouse we should be permitted to destroy it at our will, with little or no justification.
LikeLike
Lage
May 11, 2016
I think it would be too simplistic to say that we offer humans special rights simply because of speciesism, though I wouldn’t rule out speciesism as a relevant factor by any means. However, I disagree with your claim that the distinction can’t be based (at all?) on higher functioning capacities even though “marginal cases” exist. That is to say, higher functioning capacities can still be a PRIMARY reason for granting special rights to humans in general, even if exceptions to the rule are made (or other less primary reasons) for granting the same rights to lower functioning humans (for reasons such as compassion, empathy, the speciesism you mentioned, etc.). I think also pragmatism has a lot to do with how we draw our arbitrary lines of value, for example, since it is easier to simply consider all humans as valuable since it is easy to distinguish a human from a non-human, versus considering humans with a minimum of “x amount of” cognitive capacity as being valuable. It is simply far easier to apply the broad generalization of humans having a high value based on cognitive capacity rather than quantifying that cognitive capacity on a case-by-case basis. A person that sees a stranger under the “quantified cognitive value” system would not be able to ascertain the value of that stranger without some complex interaction or observation that demonstrated that stranger’s specific cognitive capacity. But if the person simply assumes that the stranger has an average human cognitive capacity, then it could ascertain the value instantly by just noticing the stranger to be human. So pragmatism has at least something to do with it as well I think.
As for humans having a natural aversion to eating one another, I think that there is some support for this claim in evolutionary theory, where if humans didn’t have this aversion generally, they would be more likely to eat members of their own family than not. Whereas eating another animal would not be nearly as risky for the genes proliferation. If we had no aversion to eating one another, then one’s genes would be less likely to propagate (think of genes that are shared within a family) and as Dawkins showed long ago, the “selfish” gene leads to natural selection of instinctual traits that increase chances of survival and reproductive success. An analogous instinct would be incest aversion which is advantageous to the survival of the species because it decreases inbreeding which leads to less accumulation of mutant recessive genes. That’s not to say that incest aversion isn’t also mediated by cultural factors, but the biological aversion there can’t be denied, nor can the evolutionary reasons for having such an aversion be denied. Such could be the case for cannibalism aversion whereby it may be an instinctual aversion, even though cultural factors can still come into play.
“Further, are you suggesting that if eating babies doesn’t detract from happiness, then it is permissible to do so? I’m not sure this aversion claim provides the moral barrier you think it does.”
Yes. It would be permissable to do so if it didn’t detract from human happiness generally, because happiness and satisfaction is the fundamental foundation for all moral reasoning (i.e. all moral reasoning breaks down to a special type of hypothetical imperative — if one wants x above all else, then one ought to do y above all else if y best accomplishes x). Now I certainly don’t think that this is likely to be the case (that we could be happiest eating babies), but hypothetically if it was, then it would be morally permissable by definition. As long as one was thinking rationally and basing their judgements on a well-informed body of facts (including facts pertaining to human psychology, sociology, biology, etc.), then one can be confident in the moral prescriptions that result from said facts.
As for my comments about artificial intelligence, I should have been more clear, but yes I was pointing out that the same reasoning should apply to artificial intelligence including possibly some basic computers. Is it possible that an animal such as a worm could be similar to some kind of computer in terms of information processing? How do we know what animals are conscious and which aren’t — likewise how do we know which computers or AI systems are conscious and which aren’t? If we don’t know either way, then we may have to use some kind of information processing complexity metric to make a reasonable guess and this is very likely the same kind of metric applicable to an animal’s cognitive capacity. So I was pointing out that if one doesn’t use some cognitive capacity (or information processing complexity) threshold to draw the line for certain ethical considerations (including meat eating or shutting down or destroying AI systems or computers), then it becomes quite difficult if not impossible to know how to behave ethically especially in a modern world where categorically different types of beings (AI) need to be considered in discussions about ethics. If one doesn’t draw the line in some way (even if there are exceptions), then trying to behave ethically becomes an exercise of futility.
LikeLike
David Boutland
May 18, 2016
Thanks for the response. I raise the issue of speciesism to point out how problematic the view that humans should hold a privileged status just because they are human is. I take such an arbitrary distinction as wholly unjustified, in the same way that racism or sexism is unjustified. You seem to be giving a defense of speciesism, using pragmatism, but if you apply your argument to a justification of racism and sexism (as I am sure has been done before) it seems clear this sort of approach completely fails. If you are simply offering a descriptive analysis of why humans might be prone to speciesism, you might be correct, but that would have no bearing on the moral permissibility or justification of such a behaviour, or on the moral status of eating non-human animals. I can see no way of saving a defense of eating non-human animals that relies in any way on speciesism.
If we are going to use higher functioning capacities as the primary reason for granting special rights to humans in general, yet make exceptions for the significant percentage of the human species that comes no where near this threshold, then how can we deny non-human animals this same exception? Many species, at their full development, have a variety of higher functioning capacities, well beyond that of many members of the human species. Why should this not compel us to afford these non-human animals the same special rights of those humans that have the equivalent amount, and in many cases far less, of these higher functioning capacities. You seem to be suggesting that if humans don’t meet the higher functioning standard that justifies giving rights and protections (like the right not to be used as a mere food source), they should simply be given the benefit of the doubt. Yet animals in a similar state, and even those animals that do have higher functioning capacities beyond the marginal cases, should not. This seems like the epitome of speciesism, and I have no idea how one could justify such a view.
As for the natural aversion to cannibalism, you may be able to tell some evolutionary story of how or why an aversion to cannibalism arose. However, you can do the same for virtually any human behaviour, including some of the most immoral actions one can think of. Not only do such arguments lack concrete evidence, they don’t appear to have any bearing on whether such a behaviour is moral or not. There are numerous ‘just-so’ stories providing an evolutionary explanation for sexual aggression in human males, but these stories, even if true, have no bearing on the moral permissibility of sexual aggression or sexual assault. Describing how a behaviour came about has no bearing on the moral permissibility of the behaviour. So, even if you are descriptively accurate in your evolutionary explanation of the human aversion to cannibalism, what bearing does this have on the moral status of human cannibalism? You would have to provide an argument on the connection between how humans evolved and morality, which is rather tricky.
As for artificial intelligence, I still don’t see the problem. It seems hard to deny that many of the non-human animals most often used as a food source – including pigs, cattle, poultry, and even fish – have varying degrees of consciousness. There are numerous metrics used to determine this, and it would seem very difficult to support a claim that such animals show no signs of consciousness. I don’t see how basic computers compare with such animals. I don’t know of any metric one could use to establish the consciousness of a basic computer, or any other morally relevant factor for that matter. If we do develop technology that displays clear signs of consciousness in the way a pig or cow does, then I don’t see any problem with affording such a thing equal moral consideration. It doesn’t appear to be a problem at the moment (though my knowledge of conscious, articifially intelligent technology is limited). Perhaps one day it will become an issue, which makes figuring out the moral status of comparable creatures all the more important.
LikeLike
Lage
May 18, 2016
Thank you for conversing with me on this topic as well! It’s always nice to see other perspectives and share ideas with one another.
Yeah, as I said speciesism isn’t the only reason that humans would grant special rights to humans over other animals, however speciesism is ultimately inevitable with regard to morality and thus moral decisions if for no other reason because it is OUR species’ happiness that guides all of our moral reasoning at the most basic and foundational level (even if our knowledge of the happiness of other animals is relevant to the final calculation of our own happiness). This is different from racism and sexism because fundamental human happiness doesn’t stem from those types of biased preferences. It’s kind of like the difference between saying that humans need food (analogous to universal preferences resulting in speciesism) as opposed to saying that humans need to eat bread or apples specifically (analogous to non-universal preferences resulting in things like racism or sexism). So no, I fundamentally disagree that speciesism leads to justifying racism and sexism. Not at all. One could try to draw arguments from one leading to the other, but I don’t believe it could be done on moral grounds (based on what we know about how racism and sexism lead to suffering and aren’t fundamental to our happiness and thus to our moral reasoning). Now my claims and arguments here may depend on how we’re defining speciesism, so perhaps some more clarification is needed to know how much we really agree or disagree on this aspect of the topic.
As for cognitive capacity, as I said I think that the “average human cognitive capacity” could be used by many (and/or it may be currently used by many, implicitly or not) as a heuristic measure for pragmatic reasons to assign a higher value to humans than non-humans without requiring any calculation of actual quantified cognitive capacity. I’m not saying I endorse this approach, but just wanted to point out that it is a reasonable basic approach to broadly categorize in this way rather than evaluating every situation in life with a case by case strictly quantifiable metric of some kind. We do this all the time in other societal arenas, for example, such as with age limits for driving or drinking alcohol. It may be the case that there are exceptions to the rule of 16 year olds being capable of driving safely, but on average, the statistics may show that 16 years old is good enough. There are likely many 14 year olds that could drive better than some 16 year olds but that doesn’t mean it is practical to allow 14 year olds to contest the 16-year-old boundary and should be able to get their license at 14. Averages and heuristics are just a useful way that society makes complicated decisions that would be too time consuming or expensive to evaluate any other way. So the same kinds of pragmatic considerations can come into play with more morally involved decisions as well. That was my main point there.
I agree with you that finding concrete evidence for evolved aversion to cannibalism may be difficult, and I was only speculating that it is plausible and completely consistent with evolutionary theory. However I disagree that you could apply evolutionary theory to justify “virtually any human behavior”. That’s just not true. It may be true for many, but nearly close to all, behaviors. If they are universal behaviors or near universal then it is more likely to be biologically grounded and therefore accounted for by evolution, but specific behaviors that are clearly cultural and non-universal would not pass muster. I would also disagree that evolutionarily grounded or instinctual behaviors have no bearing on what is moral or not. On the contrary, the innate dispositions from certain conditions leading to maximal human happiness are going to have an evolutionary (and generally biological) component and thus DO play a role in what is moral and what is not. This does not mean that all evolutionary selected behaviors (such as rape or machiavellian intelligence/strategies) are going to be moral, and so I agree with you that one shouldn’t commit the “naturalistic fallacy” which I am specifically avoiding in my case and my arguments. I’m merely pointing out that one of the things that IS “natural” that does lay some foundation for moral choices is the evolutionary and biological factors pertaining to what makes us happiest. We are simply less likely to be inclined to behave in certain ways if they detract from the happiness that results from our being human, including human instincts, what our basic needs are for psychological health, etc. It’s complicated no doubt, but evolution and what is “natural” still plays a role in determining moral behavior, even if it isn’t the ONLY factor (clearly it’s not and I’m confident we agree on this point).
Regarding my mention of artificial intelligence, again, I’m not particularly interested in the evaluation of consciousness in just the animals that we often eat but rather any animal at all (such as insects, worms, etc.). If there are no clear boundaries for which animals are conscious enough to care about not eating, then we have no way of determining which animals can be eaten and which can’t. Your appeal to metrics for animals such as pigs, cattle, etc., just proves my point — namely, that we DO need to draw a line or threshold somewhere in order to determine what deserves particular moral consideration. This goes for computers or AI systems too. If someone thinks that even eating a worm is morally wrong, then where is the analogous equivalent with regard to computers or AI systems? What metric is used to arrive at a conclusion for how to treat computers, AI systems, etc.? My point has simply been that we need some kinds of metrics and thresholds and the fact that there seems to be an easy line to draw for some cases based on some people’s opinions (such as for eating cows or pigs, with the conscious level we think they have) doesn’t negate the fact that cognitive capacity thresholds are at least implicitly being employed in those decisions. Those that deny this fact don’t realize what they’re doing I think. Just look at Jainism and their restrictions on killing animals versus a vegan versus a vegetarian and you’ll see people drawing thresholds in different places, but they’re using some kind of metric to do it and setting boundaries nevertheless. I’m in agreement with this general threshold strategy for its role in moral decision-making on meat-eating and treating other possibly conscious systems — as I don’t think it can be done rationally in any other way (without thresholds and metrics of some kind).
LikeLike
Lage
May 18, 2016
“That’s just not true. It may be true for many, but nearly close to all, behaviors. ”
Perhaps an obvious correction needed on my part:
It may be true for many, but NOT nearly close to all, behaviors.
LikeLike