In Defense of Non-Vegetarianism

Should we eat meat? There are several reasons why we should not, yet most of us consume meat despite knowing the harm to the animals or the environment. I attempted to formulate an argument in favor of consuming meat for my Environmental Ethics course. Read it if you think it might be of interest to you.

Should we spare it or kill it? Source: http://bit.ly/hwVCif

Ecologists and animal liberationists have argued against eating meat because consumption of meat is unhealthy and unethical. They have launched movements calling for a complete halt of meat consumption on grounds of ecology, animal liberation, human health and global justices. It can be agreed that commercialization of meat production and distribution has institutionalized mistreatment of animals and therefore, operation of such large-scale animal farms have to stop. However, to ask all humans to stop eating meat, such as beef and become vegetarians is neither pragmatic nor ethical. If prevention of animal deaths is the primary motive behind promoting vegetarianism then, environmentalists will need to devote resources in preventing animal deaths even in the wild. Trying to prevent animal deaths due to natural causes such as overpopulation, food shortage, poisonous plants, diseases or preys by carnivores will not be pragmatic. On the other hand, if carnivores can continue preying on animals, it would be unethical to demand omnivores like humans to limit themselves to an herbivorous diet. 

Ecologists like Coffin and Fox have argued that meat consumption is unsustainable since it has created immense pressures on ground water supply and land productivity. Fox has further argued that eating meat is unhealthy and meat production is a threat to biodiversity. In light of these valid arguments, alternatives to resource-intensive meat production should be sought. Instead of feeding grains to animals like cows, age-old practice of grazing grass in approved pasture lands should be performed locally. Since humans would consume animal protein processed from cellulose, grain production could still be reserved to feed humans. In addition, localized animal husbandry has potential to optimize use of resources and diversify breeds of cows reared. In order to make meat diet healthy, animals have to be reared naturally, i.e. without injection of artificial growth hormones and meat consumption will have to be curtailed from the current level. A limited consumption of beef will be no unhealthier than many vegetarian diet containing oils that are high in fatty acids and cholesterol. 

A prominent utilitarian and animal liberationist, Peter Singer, calls upon non-vegetarians to give up meat consumption on grounds of human justice so that grains used to feed poultry and farm animals can be used to feed hungry population in less privileged regions. Taking his argument in consideration, it has already been suggested in the paragraph above that local farmers should use grass and shrubs containing cellulose (a form of nutrient humans could not have digested directly) to feed cows and other animals. Adopting a localized animal husbandry in place of commercialized large scale animal farms will appease ecologists and environmentalists to a large extent and limited beef consumption can be continued. 

Despite some vegetarian diet providing an equivalent amount of protein or calories, meat eaters argue that meat has high culinary value and tastes good. The fact that meat is also rich in protein and has high calorie content serves as a secondary motive. Such forgone culinary value could not be easily substituted by a vegetarian diet. Advocates of vegetarianism often argue that human canine teeth and digestive system are not designed for consumption of raw meat and thus, nature does not want humans to consume meat. Carnivores on other hand, can consume meat since they have well designed canine teeth and digestive system to process raw meat. I find this argument feeble and shortsighted. Humans have used their skills and instincts to design solutions for survival using natural resources. Discovery of fire, albeit by accident has allowed humans to increase palatability of meat but this process can be considered only as unnatural as use of clothing or shelter to “artificially” protect ourselves from hostilities of the nature. The shortsightedness of the argument should be apparent by extending it to “artificial” use of jet engines to fly even though nature has not provided humans with wings for aerodynamic flight and navigation.

Other animal liberationists such as Tim Regan argue against meat consumption on moral grounds stating that since animals have rights, killing animals is unethical. Warren responds to Regan’s animal rights argument by pointing out animal deaths caused due to natural causes. If Regan’s animal rights theory were accepted, humans would be morally obligated to prevent animal deaths in the wild and also stop herbivores from being preyed by carnivores. Demanding a vegetarian diet from humans and allowing carnivores to prey unabated is an application of double standards. Furthermore, while movements to call for vegetarianism is fairly recent, meat has been part of human diet since ancient times when humans lived in hunter-gatherer societies. Meat consumption fulfills ritualistic purposes and preserves important cultural aspects in several societies. Feasting on meat is a communal human activity with ancient roots that has been carried into modern societies in the form of celebration such as Thanksgiving Day, which is centered around eating turkey, a form of meat. Consumption of meat (like beef) in limited amounts is justified and should be permissible if it is produced through application of small-scale animal husbandry practices that are resource friendly and do not impose undue pressures on existing global food production.