Thread: Some thoughts on the ethics of meat eating...

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I think the problem is that some people see this statistically, and others see it by a sort of case by case basis. Some see that saving 1 chicken is almost equivalent to saving 1 human - important. However, others see that saving 1 chicken is equivalent to saving 1 dollar when you're a millionaire - unimportant. So the question is, why do some people value the life of unseen, individual animals of an extremely large colony and others don't?

Relating it to the money analogy, such a millionaire wouldn't care about a few dollars.... until he's almost broke, then he will. And the corresponding people won't care about organisms of which there are an apparently endless supply of (whether real or imagined). I truly think people are seeing things, like chickens, in this way.

I think this is a great point. Eating meat or not eating meat is indicative of a larger philosophical difference. To further elaborate on what you said, I think it can be broken down into two different beliefs. First, whether a person either values the lives (or suffering) of domesticated animals or not. Second, a person can believe either that individual choices are meaningful or that they make little difference in the larger scheme of things.

On the first point, in his book I Am A Strange Loop, Douglas R. Hofstader explains humans' treatment of rights (to both humans and animals) as an ever-widening circle of consciousness. Years ago, this included only wealthy, white, male, property owners. A wealthy, white male in the 1800's only viewed other wealthy, white men as similar to himself and thus worthy of rights. Women, other ethnicities, and people of lower class were considered inferior and valued less. Gradually, with the advancement of civil rights that circle expanded to include women, all ethnic groups, and all income groups. Most people would agree that all humans - regardless of social status, gender, or race - are equally deserving of rights and their lives and suffering should all be equally valued. As society progress, the circle continues to expand, now to LGBT rights and even animal rights. Most people at least include dogs, cats, and other such pets in the circle and would agree that these animals should not be caused needless suffering and that their lives should be valued. Some people's circles extend further to perhaps include all mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. Most people would at least end the circle at insects. Even vegetarians, who value lives and won't kill a fish for food, won't think twice about swatting a mosquito just out of annoyance. If you are a Jainist or Buddhist monk, your circle might extend to all living creatures including insects and animals. For instance, the Dalai Lama speaks of casually watching mosquitoes bite his arm. Whether you believe the lives of individual animals depends on where you draw this line.

As for the second point, whether someones value individual decisions or not may partly be based on what culture or religion one is raised in. Also, this may depend on how someone views statistics. In 2009, the number of animals slaughtered for the average American meat-eater was 198, which is about 15,000 animals per American per lifetime. A person who values individual choice and individual animal's lives will view the 15,000 animals saved by abstaining for meat as statistically significant. Someone who does not value individual choice, would view the 15,000 as statistically insignificant compared to the amount of animals slaughtered total. In 2009, 33.3 million cows alone were killed for consumption by Americans. In addition to this, between sociological and biological forces, the media, government, etc, it is sometimes hard to see where individual choice even comes into play, let alone the question of free will. However, if we concede that our individual choices have little to no impact on the world around this and follow this point to the logical conclusion, this can lead to hedonistic or nihilistic philosophies.

Also, another point I see brought up around the vegetarianism debate is whether or not humans are evolved or designed to eat meat. Although interesting, I find this point irrelevant to the ethics of meat eating. As Richard Dawkins said, is doesn't equal ought. Just because humans have evolved to do something, doesn't mean they should . Ethics is study of how sentient beings should act based on reason, categorical imperatives, divine law, or utility - not how genetics designed us to act.

So the real question is not whether we should or should not eat meat - but why should individual animals lives be valued and do individual choices make an impact to human society and the world at large?