Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Philosophy 173
98-30307 Prof. J Yasol-Naval
A lot of literature has been cropping up in support of the view to abolish meat-eating, not only
because of scientific considerations due to the different dangers it poses to the consumer, but also due to
the widely controversial field of animal liberation and animal rights. In fact, I’ve been skimming the Internet
for some time on this issue, and it seems like the battle is joined in a lot of fronts, the scientific, the
anthropo-cultural, the politico-economical, and the philosophical. Some of the threads I’ve encountered
even contain a certain amount of “flame,” which is net-user lingo for damaging, destructive, violent, or
otherwise inappropriate language. They even present it in ways that I can almost understand the need for
it. Kidding aside though, it is evident that there exists a lot of controversy regarding this topic and this
being a philosophical paper, I intend to make my contribution to this melting pot of issues and viewpoints
I choose to defend meat-eating, not for the reason that I am a meat-eater myself (in fact, I have
been cutting a lot of my meat intake with the view to making it a minimal part of my diet), Nor is it for the
reason, as some people with imaginative minds might think, that I am unaware of the suffering and pain
that the animal processing industry (not limited to food) is causing to individual animals. I am very much
aware of it and in fact experience a stab of emotion whenever I see a dog pulled around by a leash,
bloody and blackened, struggling to get up but every time being beaten down by a stick, being prepared
for the fire. No. I choose to defend the, shall we say, “culture” of meat-eating in opposition to the
First, we will see how this attitude springs from the proponents of animal activism that we have
encountered. I will delve into an examination of these viewpoints and try to determine what these
perspectives require us to do, and look at the implications of it. We will see how the vegan world view can
be taken, for lack of a better term, only as a “pipe dream” in light of the current economical and biological
context. Next, I would like to propose an alternative that may be far more acceptable and livable for most
humans, a compromise, one might say, but may fulfill partially the interests of all concerned.
On top of our list is the progenitor of the Animal Liberation front, Peter Singer. Singer, in his
similarly entitled book Animal Liberation, was revolutionary in expanding the moral sphere to include
animals. He states that it is not any morally arbitrary quality such as species, reason, or capacity for
language or interaction that should be a determinant factor in moral adjudication. In fact, true to his
utilitarian tradition, the question to be answered is “can they suffer.” The capacity for pain and/or pleasure
is, for Singer and his utilitarian predecessors, the one prerequisite in order for a being to have any
interests at all, and in deciding on any moral issue, it is wrong to not take into account any being that has
I have stated in a previous paper that I find this view of assigning pain to animals as terribly
anthropocentric. Far be it from me to repeat myself, it is necessary to give brief mention of the reasons for
why I hold this view. Pain is attributed to creatures with a nervous system, and an obvious pain-reaction
behavior. Both of which are derived from our understanding of our own nervous systems and pain-
reactions, applying them to animals as we are wont to apply familiar concepts in order to understand an
unfamiliar thing. While this does not debunk the case for animal liberation at all, I just pointed it out to
illustrate that there may be a tinge of speciesism involved in limiting the compass of the moral sphere to
The upshot of Singer’s theory is that, we should not cause undue pain, suffering and death to all,
including animals, for merely trivial purposes. This however has implications on a wide scale. First, is that
under Singer’s methodology, people with CIPA or those unable to feel suffering and pain can be justifiably
treated as means to an end. Furthermore, disabled people or those with disorders that prohibit them from
being functional or are rendered unable to make known their personhood will also be lumped together in
this category. In Singer’s context, it will be equally justifiable if we were to experiment on and use mentally
and physically impaired humans in order to achieve other goals. This is one of the positions adopted by
“Singer's qualifications here foreshadowed his later attempt to distinguish between two different
classes of life, not humans and nonhumans, but persons and nonpersons. Defining personhood
as the possession of traits like the capacity to feel and reason, self-awareness and autonomy,
and the ability to imagine a future, Singer finds cases of humans who are not, by this definition,
persons (e.g., the comatose) and nonhumans who are persons (e.g., great apes and possibly all
mammals). While all "persons" have (roughly) equal moral status (whether they are animals or
humans), Singer values persons over nonpersons. It is this distinction that Singer's critics find so
objectionable, not so much because he brings animals into the realm of personhood, but because
Singer argues that he was misread in these cases. I will not dispute this point, or the other for that
matter. This was merely to show some of the consequences of his work. Another consequence that
concerns us in this paper however is the call to vegetarianism or even veganism. There is no doubt that
the meat food industry employs brutal methods in processing animals into food products. Kobe beef for
example, is harvested out of cows that have been kept in very small pens that prohibit their movement –
making for softer meat. Chickens are de-beaked and kept in crowded, unlighted pens in order to keep
them from pecking each other to death. Hogs used to be slid down a meat chute into big boiling vats of
water that will help remove their bristles and make them easier to skin. Singer would argue against this
using as his main principle the view to reduce pain and suffering. Points would be raised against him that
if, hypothetically, we were to revamp the entire meat industry to reduce pain and suffering to animals,
then we could eat meat. Singer would then bring his qualification of trivial purposes to bear, especially
since, as he says
“We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. l say
"taste" deliberately—this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of
eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt
that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a
diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-
There is contention on whether or not the best, or even the only, source of nutrients can be meat. This is
not limited to proteins but includes multivitamins such as Vitamin D, B12, and fat. Until we acquire
research work that is definitive regarding the sufficiency of nutrition for meat-eaters compared to
vegetarianism, I propose to let this matter rest. What is obvious, however, is that homo sapiens has
developed canines. Whether because of the introduction of meat into the diet of our ancestors or whether
man was originally an omnivore is beside the point. Fact is that we have developed them, and it is certain
that our metabolism has evolved parallel to this so much so that we are not only capable of digesting
meat but maybe also to the point of our needing it. Remember, the process of natural selection only
accords survival to the fittest, and modern man with his meat-eating capacity would not have survived
thus were it not absolutely necessary. There is even research attributing the onset of intelligence due to
That being said, it is not now very certain whether or not meat-eating is an actual necessity or just
an affectation of taste. It is then therefore unjustifiable to curb, or abolish meat-eating without proper
research into the possible consequences, some of which may prove detrimental to our health.
On a properly utilitarian perspective, we can also argue that the continuation of meat-eating
practices in fact maintains utility instead of the opposite. Meat remains one of the less expensive ways in
order to gain fat, which is useful for body energy production. Granted that almonds and macadamia nuts
have a higher fat content per 100 grams as opposed to corned beef, they are certainly much more
expensive to buy. Also, the abolition of the meat industry would cause numerous consequences including
but not limited to, economic disturbances due to brain drain from the grain industry and increased
demands on the oil industry to produce artificial fertilizers which can further denude the soil of its nutrients
All told, there are certainly aspects of Singer’s utilitarian perspective that are lacking in order to
present a proper stand for vegetarianism. The changes that would be necessary will cause untold
upheavals in society and we may turn out to be worse off than how we were. Although I by no means
1
For resources and instances of cited research in defense of meat-consumption, see Byrnes.
disavow Singer’s view that animals do have a claim to consideration, I believe it is necessary to adopt
alternatives that would call for a less dramatic restructuring of society and industry.
The eco-centric view of nature presents a viable alternative that would makes use of existing
systems but will just modify them for increased sustainability. This view does not prohibit us from making
use of resources at hand, as long as there is restitution in the sense that we restore what we take. The
relationship of hunter and prey is a not an unnatural one. The only thing that I find objectionable is the fact
that we take more than what we need, and produce suffering as we do so. Food is in fact a basic need
and I find nothing unnatural in appropriating according to our needs for survival. We could also adopt
Singer at this point and further modify these systems in order to cause the least suffering and pain to
animals. Experimentation then, to find a cure for a deadly disease, and food processing must be re-
tailored to be, for lack of a better term, more humane. Other uses of animals, like sport hunting, are trivial
and these we should abolish. But I don’t find it necessary as of yet, to completely stop eating meat.
Best, Steven. “Philosophy Under Fire: The Peter Singer Controversy.” 14 May 2008
<http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Peter%20Singer--summary.htm>
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Regan, Tom and
Singer, Peter ed. Prentice Hall NJ: 1989
Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Regan, Tom and Singer,
Peter ed. Prentice Hall NJ: 1989
Stanford, Craig. The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior. Princeton NJ: 1999