Noted utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argued that we have a moral obligation to be vegetarians. From a paper I wrote last year for an environmental philosophy course, I noted that his reasons for arguing so are:
...that the principle of equality of interests, grounded in morality, demands that we cease not only our consumption of animal flesh, but also our support of it. For if we don’t, then we are no better than either those who held slaves or turned a blind eye to the act of slavery. According to Singer, this is a natural consequence of his earlier premises; namely:
- The interests of a being are what is important to regard equally with others
- This equality should apply to all sentient beings capable of suffering
- We ought to strive for this equality
- It is an animal’s interest not to suffer (or be killed and eaten)
Since animals do suffer in the meat factories that provide us with meat to eat, this goes against their interests, and it follows that we ought to no longer eat them or allow others to do so.
I disagree; even given the veracity of those premises we are under no moral imperative to cease the act of consuming meat. Such an act, stemming from the predilections of man's nature, are amoral and not subject to such moral scrutiny.
In the interests of time, I refer you to my paper to get a better synopsis of Singer's arguments and my counter-arguments. So, do you think it's compelling that an argument on moral grounds can obligate us to refrain from the tasty carcasses of animals?
One moral argument for the eating of meat, is that if the animal is indeed a carcass, it should be eaten for the sake of not wasting the other faculties the living animal would otherwise provide - work, companionship, nutrition. Would it be morally wrong to deny the only last service an animal can provide to another being, when you consider the amount of loss experienced? I think so. We suffer when we lose an animal's life, but we suffer even more when we are robbed of its fleeting opportunity to continue on as part of ourselves through the act of consumption. It is in our interest not to suffer!
ReplyDeleteFollowed.
ReplyDeleteI'm a vegetarian, but I still think humans have the right to consume meat. We've been doing it since we discovered that a sharpen rock on a stick makes things bleed. We're animals, so why not tell a wolf or and lion, "hey, what you're doing is wrong" I do feel we should show more respect and not waste the flesh so it didn't die in vain. Like crazy sport hunting or animal poaching. I feel it's morally wrong if you kill a bunch of animals and leave them to rot...that's a waste of food and is a disrespect to the animals or a poor family that would love some of those tasty viddles.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm starving in the wild you can bet I won't be thinking it's morally wrong to eat some deer stew and wear it pelt for warmth. I'll sure as heck honor the poor creature, but I do recognized that we all will choose living over "morals"
Also, I feel it's impossible to not use a animal product or items that had animal involvement. Case in point: "fossil fuel" made from ancient decade animal and plant matter. We use the byproduct to make plastics, fuel, oil, etc; So it's ok for us to use a double cheeseburger as long as it has plants & animals in it and was left to rot for a couple of billion years...
I could go on and on...but I think I'm going on a tangent here
-romero-