james

I like the taste of meat. I hunt for food when I can. But can I justify it, or is it just a rationalization?

Morals of Killing

All human actions have positive and negative effects, and any diet is going to have a different moral cost. To what extent does morality come into play when choosing your meals?

The act of killing another human is generally frowned upon. It is seen as a violation of rights. Human rights. But even within humanity, killing can sometimes be justified, such as when killing in self defense, or to save another life. Killing in times of war is also seen as justified by many, as a defense of your nation's ideals and way of life. Of course, there are unjust wars just as there are murders, and war and murder are generally regarded as things to avoid. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that murder is immoral. There is no moral basis to take another human's life outside of them infringing on your right to life, or your loved ones'.

This being said, nobody gets upset when a human kills a mosquito or a fly or gnat or some other small annoying insect. The human's life is not in danger (disregarding malaria and other diseases), yet a life was ended. We cannot know if the mosquito is fully conscious, sentient, or even sapient. Proponents of pansychism may argue that, yes, the mosquito is aware at some level, we just don't, or can't, recognize it. However, you would be hard-pressed to find someone offended at your killing of a mosquito. I think there is no moral basis to refrain from killing insects (ok, let's try to not cause an extinction if we can avoid it).

If we increase the level of connections in the brain a little bit, bring up the level of consciousness to at least sentience, how do our morals cope when killing that creature? Say, for instance, a chicken. Chickens are clearly sentient: they respond to pain and other sensations, they seek out food and safety using their senses. However, they are quite unintelligent. Their brains are small and, compared to many other animals, not very complex. Most people in today's society would not consider it immoral to kill and eat a chicken. Around 98% of people in North America are meat eaters.

If we keep going and consider animals that are regarded as fairly intelligent like octopuses, chimpanzees, or dolphins, does it then tend towards an immoral act to kill and eat them? I know many people that do not eat animals that they consider intelligent, such as octopus. Is the reason based on an understanding of the creature's level of consciousness, or is it based on some deeper feeling? Can the revulsion towards killing and eating these animals be defended, or is it moral dumbfounding? I would venture that it is not immoral to eat these animals. The moralistic question does not seem to be predicated on any levels of consciousness, but instead of species. In a hypothetical: Would a person who enjoys eating octopus have a moral issue with killing a mentally retarded human with a level of intelligence lower than that of an octopus? I find it likely that they would, and they would be tried and convicted of murder in the latter case, but not in the former.

Animal Rights

If you were in a survival situation like Franklin's Lost Expedition, you may be confronted with the vile prospect of cannibalism for your survival. Cannibalism is rarely seen as a morally justifiable act, even when it is supposedly consensual. However, if you were being tried for cannibalism that was necessary for your survival, and you were trying to justify it in front of a jury of your peers, they may find it suspicious that your pet dog shared your meal.

The life of the dog is seen as less valuable than the life of a human. A human is a peer whereas an animal is an instrument. Something to be used for utility such as companionship, labor, and food. However, there are limits to how one morally treats animals. Torturing or abusing an animal, forcing it to fight and die for your pleasure, or killing vast quantities of them without reason (not for food or other uses), are seen as immoral acts. A violation of animal rights. In fact, these actions are often seen as flags that indicate anti-social behavior and mental disorders like psychopathy, a complete lack of empathy. Some studies show that around half of sexual murderers had abused animals. However, we do not see a positive correlation in meat eaters and anti-social behavior. If we did, society would be non-functional since, as mentioned above, up to 98% of people eat meat. It is immoral to violate an animal's rights by abusing it, but not by killing it for food.

No animal save humans question their existence, ponder their own meaning, and plead for their life before they are killed. That doesn't make it right to kill animals, but at best, killing an individual non-human animal is amoral.

Normalcy

My argument so far for killing non-human animals being amoral is that, basically, everyone does it, so it can't be that bad, right? An argument from normativity, if you want to sound smart. Here are some more arguments that support killing and eating animals being amoral.

Nutrition

Meat from animals provides some nutrition that is more difficult to get from plants such as vitamins B12 and D. Without supplementation, vegans can find themselves deficient. Fortunately, supplements are available for people who need these nutrients without needing to kill animals (directly), or from animal products such as fish oil and chicken eggs. However, it is easier to get nutrients directly from one's diet without supplementing it.

There are other nutrients that are found only in meat naturally, such as creatine. Though I am not a nutritionist, so don't take my word for it.

Land use

Some animals eat things that humans can't digest. Cows, goats, deer, and elk, for instance, eat grass and things from the earth that we humans can't. Using land that is optimized for grazing animals can be more efficient than using it for growing crops.

This doesn't provide a defense for the modern factory farms that are large contributors to global climate change including emissions like methane and acts like deforestation to provide for more grazing space. It is debatable whether there is enough natural grazing land to support meat animals for the current population. Regardless, I don't see a moral quandary with paying someone to raise and slaughter an animal for you, in principal. The second and third order effects is another issue that should be minimized, however. I will also acknowledge that meat consumers are unfortunately providing an incentive to increase these deleterious effects.

A man that moves out to the country and lives rurally has a larger environmental impact than if he were to live in the city, but we do not see people living away from cities as immoral. While our actions can have these negative effects, it doesn't mean that all negative effects are inherently immoral. All human actions have consequences, including demand for meat increasing deforestation for grazing land and factory farms producing greenhouse gasses. These are negative effects, but not necessarily immoral or the result of immoral actions.

Taste

Some people like the taste and texture of meat. A diverse palate can be good for emotional and psychological well being. This doesn't justify eating an excessive amount of animal meat (especially red meat, as mentioned in the linked article), but there is at least some science that indicates a correlation between what you eat and how you feel. It also won't be the same for everyone. Just as I don't think it would be right to force everyone to eat meat, it would not be right to force everyone to be vegan.

Culture

While I am no proponent of cultures to exist prima facie (some cultures are not good or moral), and recognizing that appealing to cultural relativism is a bit of a logical fallacy, some people take great pride in how food relates to their culture. I think it would be disappointing traveling to another country and trying to experience a bit of a foreign culture, only to have my diet limit my experience.

I may be privileged in that I have no food allergies and can eat like a garbage truck, but why not enjoy that in this life? Experiences like cooking my Indian friend his first steak and having foie gras in France are good memories. The cow and the goose may be worthy sacrifices for this goal. Food is one of those rare things that brings people together, more than almost anything else.

Some cultures consider eating cats and dogs and horses immoral because they have been tamed, trained and bred to be our companions. Some cultures also mutilate the genitals of girls and commit genocide in the name of racial purity, so I don't think it is a strong argument against eating specific animals.

The case for Vegetarianism

The root form of vegetarianism is a diet based on morality. Whether to consume food is predicated on if an animal may have suffered to provide that food. Meat is out, but eggs and milk are in. There are other forms of vegetarianism that exclude or include different animal products, but the predicate of food choice being based on animal rights remains. You could arguably be vegetarian and only eat animals that have died from natural causes if no human harmed the animal or violated its rights somehow. I also know vegetarians that feed their carnivorous pets with no moral qualms. The goal is minimizing animal suffering, not eliminating it.

While I did claim above that killing non-human animals for food is amoral, there are different means to that goal. An animal that suffers before it dies still produces meat, though it affects the taste. Even if we believe that an animal has suffered before we eat it affects the taste. I believe meat eaters and vegetarians alike share the goal that animal suffering should be minimized, if not on moral grounds, then for sensuous reasons. However, meat eaters today do lead to more animal suffering, indirectly, through increased demand for meat.

If we accept that killing and eating animals for food is amoral, then adhering to vegetarianism is still a good diet because it minimizes animal suffering. An uncomfortable fact is that the meat industry causes a lot of animal suffering due to the huge demand for meat and necessary production capacity to meet that demand resulting in factory farms. A lot of these farms have terrible conditions for the animals, which means the animals suffer. If more people were vegetarian, demand for meat would drop and fewer factory farms would be needed.

The case for Veganism

Veganism is a diet based on a different question than vegetarianism. Instead of asking when you consume food if an animal was harmed, you simply ask if it derives from an animal at all. This removes the moral predicate based on animal rights, but there are other reasons for adhering to a vegan diet. If a pig could consent to being butchered, and it was done in a completely painless way, a vegan still wouldn't eat it.

A major benefit of veganism is that less energy and land is needed to feed you. There is a smaller environment footprint for a 100% plant based diet compared to an omnivorous diet and a vegetarian diet. Protein derived from animals is correlated to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Adhering to veganism is a good diet for all the reasons for being vegetarian (if you are vegan for moralistic reasons), and also because with more vegans there are fewer negative environmental effects from their collective meal choices.

The case for Omnivorism

Omnivorism has great appeal because it is the easiest diet to have. You have no ethical or moral reasons to restrict a particular food item from your diet. Of course, this does not limit your ability to pick and choose specific sources for your food to minimize factory farming and unsustainable practices. The diet of choice for anarchists.

Omnivorism provides a diet wherein you can easily get all your required nutrients directly from your food, instead of through supplements.

The case for Carnivorism

Carnivorism can appeal to hunters that get their meat from game. Often times, a lot of food goes to waste (organs, intestines, offal, etc), but a carnivore diet requires one to eat all parts of the animal to get the necessary nutrients. A single large animal can provide enough food to last one person several months. In that way it is arguably sustainable (though if everyone were hunting their own meat, it would not scale).

Some people claim to receive benefits by switching to a carnivore diet, though there is debate over this. It is likely due to it being a very restrictive diet, and a form of elimination diet. This can be beneficial, but not strictly from consuming only meat, but by removing other foods that were causing you issues.

Conclusion

Is it moral to kill animals for food? No, but I don't think it is immoral, either. If one were torturing the animal before it died and then ate it, the eating of the animal would not be the issue. Killing a non-human animal for practical reasons of nutrition is amoral: it is neither good nor bad.

I do not advocate for any particular diet, and there are good reasons for each that I have mentioned above. I do not find any compelling moral reason to choose one diet over the other. Morality runs deeper than food choice, though food choice can have a big impact on subsequent effects such as animal suffering and the environment. It is possible to adhere to any above diet and not compromise on morality.

In this post I have outlined some reasons why one should refrain from eating animals, and in scenarios that (I believe) have a higher moral cost, such as factory and unsustainable farming, unnecessary suffering, and excessive consumption. In minimizing or eliminating these, in principal, I find no moral issues with killing animals for their tasty flesh.