We turn a blind eye

For a while, I have been rethinking my personal treatment of non-human animals. I tried to find an ethical or moral reason to continue consuming animal flesh, and I failed. Rationality and animal suffering do not go hand in hand.

The most influential figure in animal ethics is Peter Singer, who is also one of the most influential philosophers of the 21st century. In 1975, he wrote Animal Liberation, a book that played a pivotal role in bringing animal ethics into mainstream philosophical discussion. We are doing better than before, but not nearly as well as we ought to.

Animal Liberation has since been revised and expanded into Animal Liberation Now. I have been reading it lately after coming across the works of former vegan activist Alex O'Connor and Hannah Hancock. Though vegan activists are often treated by carnists—a more precise term for meat-eaters—as though they belong to a different species, it has been a pleasure to encounter thoughtful people while learning about carnism and veganism.

Before reading Melanie Joy's Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, I had understood speciesism in a somewhat distorted way. Evolutionarily, humans bonded more easily with animals they could relate to, something I previously discussed in Different Animals, Different Treatment. If you think about fish, for example, they are harder for us to relate to because they do not share many mammalian traits. As a result, we gradually developed an informal hierarchy of moral concern: cockroaches below fish, fish below frogs, frogs below cats, cats below chimpanzees, and chimpanzees below humans. Although this hierarchy may seem like a natural consequence of evolution, it is not necessarily the ethical framework that a rational, sentient species should rely upon.

Supporters of carnism often begin with an evolutionary argument. Homo sapiens evolved in Africa, where changing climates and environmental pressures increased reliance on animal foods. Animals provide essential nutrients, and so our ancestors became hunter-gatherers. Occasionally, even herbivores consume smaller animals because they offer a concentrated source of nutrition, although this is relatively uncommon. Since our ancestors ate meat and evolution equipped us with the ability to digest it, the argument concludes that eating meat is therefore justified.

To understand why this argument is unconvincing, we should consider other naturally occurring behaviours.

Take rape, for example. In evolutionary terms, rape can increase reproductive success in some species, and many non-human animals exhibit coercive mating behaviours. Yet humans have overwhelmingly concluded that rape is morally wrong. Although something may occur in nature, that alone does not make it ethical. As moral agents, we have an obligation not to commit such acts.

Early Homo sapiens were not even strictly monogamous. Men often mated with multiple women and vice versa. Cannibalism also occurred among some hominin groups.

The point is simple: not every naturally occurring phenomenon is morally acceptable simply because it evolved. Of course, this alone does not prove that eating animals belongs in that category.

Animal flesh may taste wonderful—perhaps better than many vegan dishes—but pleasure alone does not determine morality. If I insisted that I enjoyed poking a cat with a needle because I liked hearing it scream, you would rightly think something was wrong with me. Hearing is one of our fundamental senses, just as taste is. Gratifying a sense by causing unnecessary suffering does not become moral simply because it feels pleasurable. The appeal of meat is largely a cultural norm, not an ethical justification.

Another common argument is that farm animals are bred specifically to be eaten, and therefore eating them is acceptable. But what would you think if I made the same argument about a cat—or even a human baby? (I will explain the baby example shortly.) Replace eating with sex. If I selectively bred dogs for sexual purposes, most people would immediately recognise how grotesque that would be. The difference is not ethical consistency but social conditioning. Eating selectively bred farm animals is considered normal despite the absence of an ethical justification.

Why use the example of a human baby? I could equally have referred to a paralysed adult who lacks higher cognitive abilities. Human babies are highly vulnerable. An octopus can be as intelligent as a three-year-old child, sometimes even more so. What makes it morally acceptable to eat the octopus but not the baby?

Intelligence and cognitive ability are among the weakest arguments offered by defenders of carnism. If intelligence determines moral worth, then a hypothetical extraterrestrial species vastly more intelligent than humans would be justified in farming and eating us, simply because we are less intelligent.

We naturally care for members of our own species. We care for babies because they have futures ahead of them, yet we also care deeply for people who are permanently paralysed or cognitively impaired and may never possess future-oriented thinking. Why? Because our moral concern is shaped, at least in part, by species membership. That is one manifestation of speciesism.

A pig may not possess the same kind of future-oriented consciousness as an adult human, but it can suffer, it can experience fear, and it does not want to be slaughtered—just as a severely cognitively impaired human would not. No animal gives consent to be killed.

Factory farms are among the worst places into which an animal can be born. Calves are separated from their mothers. Male chicks are routinely killed shortly after hatching because they cannot produce eggs. Chickens often receive less empathy than mammals simply because they appear more alien to us.

Yet chickens can play, form social bonds, recognise individuals, and exercise self-control. Some people even keep them as companion animals. They genuinely can make wonderful pets.

If you want to understand factory farming more fully, watch footage recorded by investigators and animal advocacy organisations inside commercial farms.

Some argue that humane slaughter is morally preferable to factory farming. But the same reasoning could be applied to dogs, cats, or even human infants. Killing a dog painlessly while unconscious does not suddenly make the act ethical. Likewise, painlessly killing a human baby would not justify the act. Reducing suffering is important, but it does not answer the deeper moral question of whether killing was justified in the first place.

If you slaughter animals, do not wear the badge of "animal lover." I am also opposed to ritualistic or religious animal slaughter.

With modern nutritional science, except under exceptional circumstances, continuing to consume animal flesh solely for health reasons becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Unless you live somewhere where plant-based foods are genuinely inaccessible and animal products are your only realistic source of nutrition, it is worth researching how to build a healthy vegan diet. Before asking where your protein or vitamin B12 will come from, do the research first. A well-planned vegan diet can provide all necessary nutrients for most people at every stage of life.

And if I have offended you, please do not tell me you'll put an extra steak on the grill. I have heard that joke countless times. I am not particularly bothered by it, but it contributes nothing to the discussion.

At present, I am more of a pescatarian moving gradually toward vegetarianism. I know it is difficult to maintain such a diet in a country like mine, but an animal's life matters more than my convenience. If living more ethically requires a little hardship, I consider that hardship worthwhile.

Again, I recognise that genuine exceptions may exist. If someone had a rare medical condition requiring a soup made from a tortoise to survive or avoid severe illness, then killing the tortoise could be morally permissible. Cases like that, however, are extraordinarily rare. As science advances, they may become even rarer.

If you are genuinely concerned about your health, research the subject thoroughly. In the overwhelming majority of cases, an animal's interest in continuing to live outweighs the inconvenience of changing our diet.