When discussing the ethics of eating animals it is important for one to distinguish that eating animals for pleasure is not morally equivalent to eating of animals out of necessity. Just as violence that is committed in self-defense is not the same as an act of sadistic purposeful violence, killing animals when one has no other choice to survive is not comparable to killing animals when there are many healthful alternatives.
Throughout the centuries people had to harm and kill animals to survive. The resources obtained through the death of an animal provided humans with what they literally needed to stay alive. In the modern world, many people have access to plentiful plant-based alternatives that can provide them with all the nutrition they need to live healthy balanced lives. Humans have no inherent biological need to consume meat nor any other animal product.
This differentiation is important to make for multiple reasons. First, it is a common argument that eating meat is morally neutral because other animals eat meat and therfore it is "natural." Wild animals have no choice but to obtain nutrients through the consuming of other animals. For them, it is necessity. When a lion can go to the grocery store and pay for a black bean burger, he will no longer be required to kill his antelope neighbors to survive. Whether we are talking about predatory animals that kill to live or humans in third-world or remote countries that must hunt to feed their families, those are cases of need. Many people, however, have a choice in the matter. If one chooses to eat animal products because they taste good, because of family traditions, or simply because she can, she is not killing because it is unavoidable. She is killing for pleasure, which does not fall into the same category as those who kill out of necessity.
In addition, the harming of animals for pleasure is contradictory to the values that most people share. We are commonly disgusted with cock-fighting or dog-fighting and hate to see animals abandoned or abused. A recent news story went viral as outraged citizens cried murder at a couple who crushed animals and video-taped it for enjoyment. When the couple was sentenced to prison, people celebrated that justice had been served. The irony is that the celebration ensued over many breakfast tables that served eggs from chickens who had never seen sunshine and pigs who had spent their entire lives in crates so small they couldn't turn around. If we oppose animal abuse for pleasure in one case, then we must oppose it in others, in order to truly align our habits with our values.
Finally, when we harm animals as a society, we become collectively more insensitive to the suffering of others. If we can make choices in life every day that do the least harm to others, we have an obligation to make those choices. Furthermore, we grow in integrity and become more compassionate and selfless versions of ourselves when we deny ourselves pleasures to give another being the gift of life. If we choose selfishness, violence, and apathy each time we sit down to eat we ignore the gifts of mercy and kindness that we can bestow in our humanity.
Throughout the centuries people had to harm and kill animals to survive. The resources obtained through the death of an animal provided humans with what they literally needed to stay alive. In the modern world, many people have access to plentiful plant-based alternatives that can provide them with all the nutrition they need to live healthy balanced lives. Humans have no inherent biological need to consume meat nor any other animal product.
This differentiation is important to make for multiple reasons. First, it is a common argument that eating meat is morally neutral because other animals eat meat and therfore it is "natural." Wild animals have no choice but to obtain nutrients through the consuming of other animals. For them, it is necessity. When a lion can go to the grocery store and pay for a black bean burger, he will no longer be required to kill his antelope neighbors to survive. Whether we are talking about predatory animals that kill to live or humans in third-world or remote countries that must hunt to feed their families, those are cases of need. Many people, however, have a choice in the matter. If one chooses to eat animal products because they taste good, because of family traditions, or simply because she can, she is not killing because it is unavoidable. She is killing for pleasure, which does not fall into the same category as those who kill out of necessity.
In addition, the harming of animals for pleasure is contradictory to the values that most people share. We are commonly disgusted with cock-fighting or dog-fighting and hate to see animals abandoned or abused. A recent news story went viral as outraged citizens cried murder at a couple who crushed animals and video-taped it for enjoyment. When the couple was sentenced to prison, people celebrated that justice had been served. The irony is that the celebration ensued over many breakfast tables that served eggs from chickens who had never seen sunshine and pigs who had spent their entire lives in crates so small they couldn't turn around. If we oppose animal abuse for pleasure in one case, then we must oppose it in others, in order to truly align our habits with our values.
Finally, when we harm animals as a society, we become collectively more insensitive to the suffering of others. If we can make choices in life every day that do the least harm to others, we have an obligation to make those choices. Furthermore, we grow in integrity and become more compassionate and selfless versions of ourselves when we deny ourselves pleasures to give another being the gift of life. If we choose selfishness, violence, and apathy each time we sit down to eat we ignore the gifts of mercy and kindness that we can bestow in our humanity.
"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."
- Isaiah 11:6
- Isaiah 11:6