Is Eating Meat Morally Wrong?
In recent podcast interview on Philosophy Bites, philosopher Jeff McMahan argues that humans shouldn’t eat meat, because killing animals deprives them of valuable future life experiences. He believes that the morally bad act of cruelly depriving another conscious being of its future life outweighs the good that humans derive from eating animals. What do you think?
Listen to the podcast here.
This is, I believe, a mis-application of moral philosophy, counter-physiological and just plain silly. McMahan’s initial premise, that the moral harm done to a sentient animal (by cutting short it’s life and depriving it of pleasurable life experiences) outweighs the benefits to humans of eating animal products, is flawed and exactly where this particular argument for vegetarianism falls down. McMahan seems to imply that the only benefit for humans when eating animal products is pleasure. This too is flawed.
If one wants to argue this on evolutionary grounds (a common worldview of secular philosophers), there is ample evidence that humans have evolved as obligate omnivores, in the same manner as chimps and gorillas. Some evidence of this is:
1. Dentition consistent with being an obligate omnivore. This includes both molars for grinding vegetable matter (like a herbivore) and canines for ripping and tearing flesh (like a carnivore).
2. A gastro-intestinal and digestive set up like an obligate omnivore. Not the short gut of a pure carnivore and not the long, multi-stomached GI system of an obligate herbivore.
3. The commonly seen nutritional deficiencies that result from a vegetarian diet that is not artificially supplemented – B12 deficiency, iron deficiency, protein deficiency.
This is strong evidence that humans are physiologically set up as obligate omnivores. Whether this is by evolution or by design is another debate. Couple this with the fact that, if evolution is true, humans have obviously evolved as hunters and gatherers – that is HUNTERS and gatherers - with the self-evident evolutionary advantages that this omnivorous diet has conferred.
Either way, by design and by physiology, there really is no argument – HUMANS ARE MEANT TO CONSUME ANIMAL PRODUCTS.
In a Darwinian worldview, is it even coherent to question the morality of eating animals? It seems to me to be a situation of trying to “have your lentils, and eat them too”. Either, as per Darwinian physicalism, humans have evolved as omnivores and objective morality is illusory, or not. If the former is the case, then as obligate omnivores we should continue to consume animal products, without guilt, in exactly the same manner as we have evolved to – a characteristic that has obviously given us an evolutionary edge over other animals.
That said:
1. Do Westerners eat too much animal products? It seems so. But the logical response is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting the consumption of all animal products, but to consume animal products in physiological moderation, as part of a balanced diet.
2. Should animals intended for consumption be treated humanely and compassionately? Of course, as sentinent and feeling beings, they most certainly should be treated in this manner, at all times and in all ways. Every effort should be made to minimise fear, anxiety, stress and discomfort, both in everyday life and in transit situations.
3. Should animals intended for consumption be killed as cleanly, quickly and painlessly as possible? Of course – catch them by surprise and kill them quickly. Prods and bolts, rather than knives would seem more compassionate and humane, regardless of cultural or religious requirements.
4. Should we get all bound up with worry and self-loathing about how eating animal products deprives these animals of a happy and fulfilling life? This seems to me to be a naive anthropomorphization – it is almost impossible to conceive sentient life as another species, what constitutes a ‘happy life’ for livestock, and whether the concept of having a ‘happy and fulfilling life’ even registers in their psyches as an everyday priority.
One wonders whether McMahan vexes so much over the concept of depriving a fellow human being of a potentially long, fruitful and fulfilling life, this particular human being having the misfortune of combining the disabilites of being as-yet-unborn, defenceless and (unfortunately) unwanted by it’s parents?
Justin Cohen
on June 22nd, 2010
What is Mr. McMahan’s position on abortion?
Is his stance that it also deprives a another conscious being of its future life / life experiences?
rogermorris
on June 22nd, 2010
I ask the same question Justin. I might actually ask him…
stacy hilman
on June 23rd, 2010
if we deprive ourselfs of killing animals and eating meat we bann ourselves from a gift of God. without meat we are not fully nourished and we need to be healthy to be truely able to bring God’s word to others.
rogermorris
on June 24th, 2010
At the risk of laboring my point, we (as humans) are designed physiologically as obligate omnivores. So to raise the question of the morality of eating animal products, in the context of our obligate omnivorous status makes as much sense as questioning the morality of breathing air and producing CO2 when, clearly, we are physiologically designed to breath air.
The question should not be “Is it moral to eat other animals”, rather it should be “Given we are physiologically designed to consume both animal and plant foods, how should we treat animals we intend to consume for food?”.
It seems to me that the question of the morality of consuming animal products is a dilemma peculiar to comfortable, over-fed, excess-of-all-needs Western contemporary society. The small amount of animal products in the diet of 2/3s world cultures and historically past cultures is more of a factor of limited availability than moral conscience. It is only in chubby Western cultures, with the easy availability of artificial dietary supplements, that these questions are even entertained.
I maintain my position that voluntary veganism/vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice that is made in spite of physiological needs, often for dubious anthropomorphic justifications.
rogermorris
on July 4th, 2010
“Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming plant, animal, and inorganic material.[1] Varying with available food sources in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted a range of diets, from purely vegetarian to primarily carnivorous.
In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to utilize nutritionally balanced food sources.[2]”
1. Haenel H (1989). “Phylogenesis and nutrition”. Nahrung 33 (9): 867–87. PMID 2697806.
2. American Dietetic, Association; Dietitians Of, Canada (2003). “Vegetarian Diets”. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (6): 748–765. doi:10.1053/jada.2003.50142. PMID 12778049. online copy available
The closest primate to humans, the bonobo/chimpanzee, is mainly frugivorous, but supplements its diet with leaves and meat from small vertebrates, such as flying squirrels and duikers,[1] and invertebrates.[2] In some instances, Bonobos have been shown to consume lower-order primates.[3][4]
1. Ihobe H (April 1992). “Observations on the meat-eating behavior of wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) at Wamba, Republic of Zaire”. Primates 33 (2): 247–250. doi:10.1007/BF02382754. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7145027g60n708l/.
2. Rafert, J. and E.O. Vineberg (1997). “Bonobo Nutrition – relation of captive diet to wild diet,” Bonobo Husbandry Manual, American Association of Zoos and Aquariums
3. Surbeck M, Fowler A, Deimel C, Hohmann G (2008). “Evidence for the consumption of arboreal, diurnal primates by bonobos (Pan paniscus)”. American Journal of Primatology 71 (2): 171–4. doi:10.1002/ajp.20634. PMID 19058132. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121543963/abstract.
4. Surbeck M, Hohmann G (14 October 2008). “Primate hunting by bonobos at LuiKotale, Salonga National Park”. Current Biology 18 (19): R906–7. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.040. PMID 18957233. http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982208011172.
rogermorris
on July 4th, 2010
Interestingly, I am one of a small percentage of modern humans who are fortunate (or maybe not) enough to be characterised by a congenital absence of all four wisdom teeth/3rd molars (hypodontia).
Anthropologically, the 3rd molars (which erupted relatively late in development) functioned as “back up” dentition for early humans whose earlier dentition had been worn down by a diet high in tough/fibrous plant foods.
My dentist tells me that my congenital lack of wisdom teeth is an evolutionary improvement through natural selection. As I am obviously one who is more highly evolved and genetically more suited to a softer omnivorous diet, maybe we omnivores will inherit the earth as vegetarians die out from their dental abscess and bad breath (who would want to breed with someone like that?)
Andy
on September 27th, 2010
Quote “if we deprive ourselfs of killing animals and eating meat we bann ourselves from a gift of God. without meat we are not fully nourished and we need to be healthy to be truely able to bring God’s word to others.”
If you think it that way, then you will forever be a human being.,and will never meet God.
Taylor
on March 5th, 2012
thank you to rogermorris for covering some important points. Meat is a supplement to a previously vegetarian diet. So, we currently may consume anything at the cost of lower consumption efficiency throughout food groups. We are not obligatory omnivores although we have become dependent on milk to maintain our strong bones and larger frames.
The reason I am here, however, is because I will not eat meat (as of yesterday morning) because I know that animals are consistently being treated with disturbing disrespect. The tradeoff is my nourishment for their ludicrous suffering throughout life. I am willing to use vitamins and a more conscious diet to ensure that I do not contribute to that. I want to know your thoughts on this. (I do not value a God argument, Stacy. Atheism is a risk I am willing to take. This is life-altering stuff!)
Additional details on my perspective: I am primarily concerned with respecting the animal’s sacrifice, and I wish I could view it as such, as opposed to a gift of putting it out of its suffering, which it currently resembles more closely. I do not know if I would eat meat, knowing that it would otherwise go to waste. So its driven by respect and applied by not adding to the demand for animal cruelty.
Thank you in advance. I appreciate your time and consideration with this issue.
Dr.H.Davis
on April 10th, 2012
Animals and denizens of the ocean eat each other with abandon.So I feel I can eat them!
Jeus ate fish and lamb so I can too.
A.K.A
on May 6th, 2012
I don’t understand how Jesus ate meat. Where does it say? someone tell me. And so what? Having teeth for meat or no meat makes no difference. We were before apes, and now humans. Maybe in the near future our meat eating teeth will be gone, and our future generations will think what a brutal act we have done. It is plainly immoral for humans to eat meat.