The Ethics of Meat Consumption

For several decades, philosophers, movements, and individuals have argued on the issue of consuming meat and all other animal products. The topic on the ethicality of eating meat is particularly interesting as questions are still being asked whether there is a moral case for consuming meat. For instance, existing animal rights movements have their claims against meat consumption amplified by the philosopher Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation. His book has had direct and indirect impacts on how individuals view the moral and ethical status of eating meat. Although he uses rhetorical effectiveness, his utilitarian argument against hurting animals to meet human needs is barely compelling. Mainly, this is because animals lack the moral status and capacity inherent in human beings. Unlike humans, animals can neither set their own moral rules nor act on them based on reasoning.

Through this paper, I will argue that eating meat is not unethical, using the utilitarianism approach, which cuts both ways, and the human exceptionalism theory as well. To achieve this, I will first explain the utilitarianism and human exceptionalism theories. Next, I will present my argument while applying the two approaches to show how consumption of meat is not unethical. The use of examples and analogies will further support my stance. Lastly, I will present an existing argument objecting to my case and then reply to the same.

Exposition

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that helps to distinguish between right and wrong by focusing mainly on the consequences of an action. It takes a consequentialism approach by holding that the most ethical course of action leads to the highest good or the greater public good. The utilitarianism answer to the question “What should a person do?” is that one should act on that which produces the best consequences.

Conversely, the human exceptionalism theory holds that human beings are distinctive and unique, and should be assigned a moral status due to this uniqueness. According to proponents of this theory, human beings are inherently different, and they deserve to be valued distinctively and uniquely. Unlike animals, humans can develop social relationships, use language, feel pain, and reason.

Arguments

The utilitarianism theory upholds my argument that it is not unethical to eat meat. Animals do lack moral standing. Since they only consider their own interests and not that of the greater good, they have no inherent rights to morality under utilitarianism. Consequently, it is justifiable that the intentional death of an animal serves the greater good by providing culinary pleasure to human consumers, and satisfying their basic need of food to survive. An animal’s suffering in death is lesser than the results enjoyed by humans as they eat meat.

A philosopher, Joel MacClellan, argued that the utilitarianism assessment of ethical permissibility of consuming animal products varies significantly depending on the function of animal size. He gave an analogy that discredits Singer’s utilitarianism. The philosopher explained that the suffering in death of one whale should be weighed against the enormous pleasure it could provide to humans consuming its meat. Automatically, the pleasure derived from eating meat from the whale serves more excellent utility to a lot of people compared to the suffering of the whale.

Further, the human exceptionalism theory supports my argument that it is not unethical to eat meat because animals lack the moral status that humans possess. According to some philosophers, personhood differentiates animals from human beings. Although it would be possible for most individuals to live without eating meat, it’s hard for most humans because it helps in countering the basic urges of hunger. While several animals are strictly herbivorous, we are not like them, as proven by evolutionary biology, where human development was significantly spurred by eating meat in the ancient hunting and gathering societies.

Objection and Reply

An argument has been raised by Peter Singer in his book, against the stand that eating meat is not unethical. In his book, Singer states that the suffering of animals is a substantial evil and implores people to turn to vegetarianism or veganism. He explains that this would undermine industrial farming and minimize the level of animal suffering considerably (Singer). While I agree with Singer’s claims that animals suffer, I disagree with the reasons he cites when advocating for people to become vegans. Although he intends to present a utilitarianism case, he fails in doing so because utilitarianism is about doing the greater good. Singer’s strategy of voting against factory farming as the primary plan in boycotting meat does not suffice. Becoming a vegetarian does not help the individual to achieve anything through consumer choices, as they cannot be quantified against the number of animals in the market.

Conclusion

Indeed, the utilitarianism and human exceptionalism approaches to ethics justify my stand that it is not unethical for humans to consume meat. The topic regarding the ethicality of eating meat can be useful when approaching other sensitive issues in society. Such include the question whether abortion and euthanasia are ethical or unethical practices. By basing an argument on ethical theories such as utilitarianism, we can gain a better understanding of the morality of human actions.

Work Cited

1. Singer, Peter. Animal liberation. Towards an end to man's inhumanity to animals. Granada Publishing Ltd., 1977.