When and Why Eating Meat is Wrong

I will never know how many nonhuman animals I have eaten in my lifetime. The exact number is lost to the years. But I ate them. Ground into paddies, skewed on sticks. For two decades, the ethics of it all never crossed my mind. I mean. What ethics? It was food. They were food. Animals were an ingredient like any other. People eat meat all the time. It’s normal. It’s okay. That’s the dominant view, at least. It used to be mine too.

When hearing about ethical vegans, it might be tempting to think they were always like that. They never skinned a catfish or ordered meat-lovers. They never joked about their less carnivorous friends. But not so long ago, I was an omnivore doing all these things. It was not until later that I read about veganism to debunk its moral stance. Now, having been humbled by what I found (so much so I went vegan over three years ago, something I said I could never do), I want to share two of the arguments which changed my mind – two arguments which show that needlessly paying for meat (and hence needlessly paying for animals to be killed) is wrong. Pulling this off might seem difficult. But, as I came to discover, it is unnervingly easy. This is because veganism – the view that it is wrong to exploit animals for unnecessary products – is based on commonsense morals you likely already accept. In fact, if you agree with at least one of the following statements, I argue, then you already agree with veganism:

1. If you don't need to cause undeserved harm or death, you shouldn't.

2. Years of life are more valuable than minutes of taste.

3. It would be wrong to needlessly kill a young and healthy dog or cat.

To show how these common beliefs generate veganism is the aim of the two arguments. Before I present them both, it will make sense to quickly define veganism. I will also define what I mean by the words “necessary” and “needless”. After that, we’ll consider four common objections to veganism (because who doesn’t love a little back-and-forth, right?). The two vegan arguments will finally wrap things up from there. Oh, and one last thing: To make our discussion simpler, the animal product we will focus on most is meat. Yet, contrary to popular belief, dairy and egg industries cause no less death and violence to the animals involved (and arguably even more. See https://www.vegan.com/answers/#dairy). Alright, that's enough roadmapping – let's actually get into it! It will help us to start with a story:

One summer weekend, a man named Frank decides to get out the grill. It’s been a while since the last burger, Frank thinks to himself, so he lights the charcoal and goes inside to fetch some patties. To his disappointment, he opens the freezer and finds only plant-based burgers. Frank prefers the “real stuff” but forgot to buy more last outing. He wonders how he can satisfy his meat cravings now. At this point, most people in Frank’s shoes would just settle for the plant-based. But not Frank. Frank is a meat enthusiast. He enjoys tasting new animals and even reads DIY butcher methods. It’s going to take a lot more before Frank eats his greens. Closing the freezer door, he spots something in the corner of his eye. Frank looks down to find his young dog Annie panting with a grin and wagging her tail. Suddenly, an idea. He whistles for Annie to follow him outside. He takes her behind a shed, makes her sit, and puts a rifle between her eyes. Trustingly, she doesn’t move. Frank pulls the trigger. Bang. Birds scatter. Wagging stops. Hardly an hour later, Frank is back at his grill, enjoying meat more fresh than if he bought it frozen.

What do you make of this story? Did Frank do anything wrong? Many would say yes – obviously! If they caught their neighbor killing and eating a dog, they would likely be horrified. You can imagine the headlines if word got out: “Local Man Murderers Dog, Grills Corpse.” Some might even call for Frank’s arrest, or at least a damning fine. Such cries would have been useless, however, assuming Frank is American and had killed and eaten Annie prior to September of 2018. Before then, as you might be surprised to learn, home-raised dog and cat meat was perfectly legal in 44 states.¹ But under the recent Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act, Frank can now face charges of up to $5,000.² His choice of meat has social and legal consequences in our society. To this, many of us are inclined to say: Good. He deserves it. Some might go farther. Only $5,000? Let’s now consider a second story.

A slew of natural disasters hit, and Frank and Annie become trapped in a building. A few grueling weeks pass before they run out of food. At this point, the only way for Frank to avoid starving to death is to kill and eat Annie. Knowing he has no other option, he shoots and eats her. Frank survives long enough for others to find and rescue him. Because of his decision, Frank makes it out alive.

What do you think of Frank in this story? I’m willing to bet he seems a whole lot more reasonable this time around. Tragic as it might be, Frank killing and eating Annie seems permissible and maybe even the right thing to do in this case. Frank’s life, as a more sentient human, has higher moral worth than Annie’s life, as a less sentient dog. Thus, when forced to choose, it seems Frank’s life ought to be saved. This conclusion seems right to me, and it probably does to you too. But recall how differently we felt about the first story. How does eating a dog seem so horrible in one case, but justified in another?

To answer this, we have to distinguish between two very different actions: necessary killing and eating and needless killing and eating. See if you find the difference between them convincing.

Necessary killing and eating: Killing and eating an animal is necessary for you only when no other foods are available to keep you from starving to death or becoming dangerously ill.

This, I think, is a fair way to define when eating meat is a true necessity. You’ve heard it before in phrases like “basic needs” or “necessities of life.” When we call things like food, water, and shelter necessary, what we really mean is they are necessary for survival. Similarly, when I say “necessary killing and eating,” I’m talking about an action someone must do to just to keep from dying. Whether or not eating meat is a necessity for someone is not a very subjective thing under this definition. Either you have access to plant foods that can keep you alive and well (in which case, meat is optional), or you don’t (in which case, take whatever you can get). The foods that someone can or cannot realistically obtain given their circumstances is a pretty objective thing. For anyone living in a remote, mountainous regions with harsh soil, eating some animals might be necessary. For a first-world grocery shopper, the options are rarely so few. This brings us to our next definition:

Needless killing and eating: Killing and eating an animal is needless for you whenever other foods are available to keep you from starving to death or becoming dangerously ill. Or put a little more trivially, killing an eating an animal is needless whenever it is not necessary.

With these two definitions in place, we can finally get clear about what I and most vegans actually believe. By and large, vegans only believe that needless killing and eating of animals is wrong. Necessary killing and eating, on the other hand, is morally justified. What reasons are there to think we are right about this claim? Well, for starters this view has a lot of explanatory power. It elegantly explains why Frank was wrong to kill and eat Annie when he had the option of plant-based burgers, but not when he was choiceless and verging on starvation. Meat is necessary and hence justified when you have no plant foods to keep you alive. Meat is needless and hence wrong when you do have plant foods to keep you alive. That is the vegan position.

Four Objections

Explained this way, rather than misconstrued as the view that eating animals is always wrong no matter how extreme the situation, veganism should sound more sensible. As the vegan society's official definition puts it, "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”³ Yet, even when veganism is properly understood in this non-absolutist way, some readers will still push back. Here are a few typical objections: Can vegan diets really keep us healthy? Also, aren’t vegan foods expensive? If either of these concerns are valid, then eating meat could be necessary for many more people than I am making it sound. Moreover, can plants suffer too? If so, then how is killing and eating plants any better than doing the same to animals? Plus, animals eat other animals all time, so why can’t we? These four objections to veganism are very common. Though it might feel like a bit of a detour, I think it is worth quickly considering each.

1. Is Veganism Healthy?

First, the health concern. Many people assume that meat, dairy, and eggs are necessary for good nutrition. But if we look at the science, it becomes clear this isn’t true. Consider an official statement by The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. They determined that (emphasis added) “appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.” When it comes to our health, animal products are not necessary. We even have lower risks of cancer and heart disease without them.⁴

The simple truth is that meat, dairy, and eggs are not nutrients in themselves. Rather, they are composed of nutrients, all of which can be found in non-animal sources. Sure, some nutrients are less common in a vegan diet, such as vitamin B12. But there are plenty of plant foods that naturally contain or are fortified with these nutrients, as well as plant-based multivitamins. And besides, it is not as if the typical meat-eater is nutritionally carefree. Most Americans are undernourished in fiber and potassium, and eat well below the recommended intakes of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains – all of which are nutritional needs that are effortlessly met by a balanced vegan diet.⁵ When compared to the typical omnivore, there are fewer nutritional risks that vegans have to worry about overall. In fact, just by abstaining from meat, you can expect a “significant increase in life expectancy” of 3.6 years on average – a number determined by a heavily-cited review of 6 individual cohort studies (in fact, many abstainers even see up to 5.8 years).⁶ In another comprehensive study, vegans were found to have an impressive “14% lower risk of all-cause mortality” (dying from any health cause).⁷ Not bad, if you ask me. Animals are apparently not the only ones who live longer if we stop eating them. Hopefully you can see why health is only a motivator to go plant-based, not a reason to hesitant.

2. Can Plants Feel Pain?

Second, we have a typical worry about plants and pain. Before taking on this question, allow me to point out an ironic fact that is often overlooked. Most of the crops that humans grow is fed to livestock, not humans. That means omnivorous diets cause many more plant deaths than vegan diets do. Two-thirds of U.S. crops go to feeding livestock, for example.⁸ It requires far less crops to just eat the plants directly, rather than to have those calories pass through another stomach first where most of the energy stays with the animal. This is why eating vegan requires fewer plants than a diet with animal products. (Thus, it also requires less land use. That means less deforestation and displacement of Indigenous peoples, and less climate damage! See this five-minute read for more: https://earth.org/veganism-land-use). Clearly, whatever issues may exist in plant farming are only multiplied by animal farming. If plants feel pain, this would only be another reason to go vegan.

However, the good news is that plants are almost certainly not conscious. We should all agree that those best fit to judge are botanists and neurologists. And for these scientists, the idea of plant consciousness is not an open controversy. It’s a dubious myth. All plants grow and many can react to stimuli, sometimes in fascinating ways. Yet, the evidence for plant consciousness is bleak, while the evidence against is outright damning. Experiencing pain (or any mental state, for that matter) requires at least a brain. Plants have none, and this fact just about shatters all hope of a secret mental life for vegetables.

As Lincoln Taiz, Professor Emeritus of molecular, cell, and developmental biology at University of California at Santa Cruz, bluntly puts it, “Plants don't even have neurons – let alone brains […] What we’ve seen is that plants and animals evolved very different life strategies. The brain is a very expensive organ, and there's absolutely no advantage to the plant to have a highly developed nervous system.”⁹ Taiz’s argument here is simple. Having taken a radically different evolutionary path than us animals, there are no reasons why stationary plants would be naturally selected for consciousness. What use is being aware of one's surroundings if you cannot navigate them? Having a brain would cost the plant a lot of its energy, and the result would not even be beneficial. Awareness is useless to a plant. No Darwinian benefits are there to outweigh the cost! In a 2019 paper Taiz co-authored with seven other researchers, they concluded it is “extremely unlikely that plants, lacking any anatomical structures remotely comparable to the complexity of the threshold brain, possess consciousness. […] we consider the likelihood that plants, with their relative organizational simplicity and lack of neurons and brains, have consciousness to be effectively nil.”⁹ See also https://www.livescience.com/65905-plants-dont-think-or-feel.html to read more of the interesting science behind the nonmental lives of plants.

The last thing I’ll quickly note is that, when talking about plant “deaths” in farming, people routinely forget that harvesting many seeds, grains, fruits, and vegetables does not require damaging the plant at all. In fact, the whole evolutionary purpose of a plant growing these foods is so that animals (human or otherwise) will eat them and potentially spread the seeds. Tubers are the only plant food I can think of that may necessarily involve “killing” the plant, but even then, one could choose to only remove pieces and let the root regrow. But at this point I’m overthinking it. We know it takes a brain to experience anything. If a gardener exerts this much effort to treat his plants gently, he is the only one who could be relieved by it. The plants, no more capable of conscious opinion than the rocks and dirt they grow on, quite literally cannot care less.

3. But Animals Eat Other Animals

If it is okay for a lion to eat a gazelle, then why isn’t it okay for a human to eat a cow? Of all the stereotypical anti-vegan arguments, this one is perhaps the most abused. It is also one of the least thought-out. For starters, it is necessary for carnivores to eat other animals. Meanwhile humans, being omnivores, can survive perfectly well off plants. We have a choice, lions do not. For some reason, the fact that we have a choice (that is, we can also survive by eating animals) sometimes strikes people as a reason to do it. But this doesn’t follow. Just because your body can do something doesn’t mean it’s morally justified. If I was physically next to you and able to punch you in the face, I doubt you’d think it okay for me to take a swing. Also, most of the animals humans tend to kill and eat – cows, pigs, lambs, chickens, turkeys, ducks – are herbivores. They don’t eat other animals. If they are supposed to be our ethical guides, then we should be living off plants. This point brings us up against one most glaring issue of this argument. Why should we look to the animal kingdom for moral guidance in the first place? Wild animals are not exactly the best role models. When a new male lion takes dominance in a social group, he kills every cub born by the previous male. Animals commit infanticide. Rape and cannibalism are also widespread in nature. Does that mean humans are justified in these actions? Of course not.

When animals act in these ways, violent as they may be, we do not hold them morally blameworthy. There is a simple reason why. It has nothing to do with species, but rather a lack of reason and understanding. Simply put, a lion cannot morally deliberate. She has neither a concept of right or wrong, nor the rational autonomy to act on one. Lions are not moral agents, but rather moral patients. That means they can be the victim of wrongdoing, but they lack the understanding and ability to be held responsible for wrongdoing themselves. Another example of a moral patient would be a human toddler, or a person with severe dementia. If a toddler grabs an apple and leaves a grocery store with it, it would be a mistake to accuse them of shoplifting. Toddlers do not understand enough to be held guilty. Likewise with some adults who suffer from severe dementia. Thus, they cannot be blamed for their actions. If we were talking strictly in terms of sensory data, then sure, the toddler is “aware” of what he is doing. He knows he picked up an apple, that he’s walking away with it, and so on. But in terms of moral duties and the social significance of his actions – what really matters when assigning blame – the toddler is entirely unaware. Moral patients can still cause harm to others of course, but when they do, it is not the case that they know better.

When a bear mauls a hiker to death, we do not arrest the bear, read him his rights, and then convict him in a trial by jury. We do not accuse the bear of conscious wrongdoing and hope enough time behind bars will get him to see the error of his ways. Rather, we recognize that wild animals don’t know any better. If the bear is shot and killed by humans later on, it will be out of a belief that doing so protects other humans, not a just desire to punish a murderer. By contrast, you and I are moral agents. We can morally deliberate – it is what we are doing right now in this discussion on animal ethics! And so, we can be held morally blameworthy for our actions, including the action of needlessly killing a cow. A lion, who would probably devour anyone trying to do moral philosophy with them, cannot.

4. Is Veganism Costly?

The fourth and final common pushback to veganism we’ll discuss is cost. Vegan foods are often thought to be expensive. Yet, once again, this much more of a myth than a reality. For most, animal products are a financial burden rather than a necessity. As a broke college student, I thankfully experienced firsthand the findings of many economic studies: that for most places in today’s first world countries, vegan diets are cheaper than omnivorous ones.^10,11 Recently, meat-free Americans were found to average savings of $23 per week.¹² One family even took a two-week vacation to Greece using only the money they saved in their first 6 months eating vegan.¹³ All of this make sense given that plant protein is cheaper, and grains, beans, frozen produce, pasta, plant milks, and other staples of a balanced vegan diet can be found at low prices. I rarely spend over $3 (and often below $1) for any food item, and I could save more by avoiding name brands. If you are skeptical, try shopping vegan next time you go out. As long as you don’t splurge on too many vegan junk foods, I think you will be surprised at the savings! All that said, reality is very different for those living in food deserts, prisons, or are homeless on the street. For these and similar people (who are disproportionately people of color, due to systemic racism), sometimes non-vegan foods might be all they can access to survive – an unfortunate case of necessary killing and eating.

But if you are neither jailed nor homeless, nor among the 5.6% of Americans who occupy food deserts¹⁴ (or of a similar group in another country), then it is mainly to you I am speaking. When browsing the supermarket, you are not starving to death with no choice but meat. For you, eating animals is unnecessary. This is a good thing – for your health and wallet, as well as for the animals. The connection between buying meat and animal harm is obvious, after all. While every animal does die by the time they reach shelves, the purchase pays for another to be slaughtered in their place. There is no victimless meat. The victims are the meat. Thus, there is no innocent meat purchase. Supply and demand puts the blood on every omnivorous shopper’s hands.

Looking at Ourselves

All of this leads us to an uncomfortable question. For us first world consumers, which Frank are we? Are we the one who kills and eats for necessity? Or the one who kills and eats for mere taste? Sure, Westerners eat mostly dead cows, pigs, and chickens rather than dogs. But in the first story about Frank, I only used the word “dog” once. Suppose I swapped it for “pig.” Suppose Annie’s wagging tail was curlier, and she had hooves instead of paws. So what? Pigs are shown to be just as intelligent and sentient as canines.¹⁵ Same with cows, who form tight emotional bonds with humans and each other.

Think of a dog or cat you know and love. That animal’s mind and personality could have just as easily been born into the body of a cow, pig, or lamb. In such an alternate world, would you be killing and eating this dear pet? Does the body an animal happens to be born with determine whether you show them love or violence? Personally, this question is the first one that got me questioning the ethics of eating animals. How could I be consistent in mourning the deaths of Casey, Patch, Chloe, and Ginger – four dogs that my family adopted and loved over the course of about 25 years – if I actively paid for the death of animals that were identical in every way that mattered? The love that non-vegan pet owners have for their animals is disturbingly conditional in at least one obvious way: it is conditional on that animal’s species. Had that pet been less fortunate and born as a farmed animal, their loving owner would pay for their slaughter. This is just an uncomfortable fact of the matter.

I have argued that needlessly killing pigs, cows, or lambs is no better than doing the same to dogs or cats. What about other commonly farmed animals, like chickens or turkeys? Turns out they are much closer behind than many think: equal in sentience to other birds that many people would shudder to see killed, like blue jays and owls. Fish, also, are much more aware and social animals than commonly believed. My point here is this: No matter the farmed animal, being killed while young and full of life, as they all are, is not in their best interests. All farmed animals are conscious and feeling. All farmed animals want to live. And for us, not one needs to die. This is what makes “humane slaughter” such a contradiction. Think of synonyms for “humane,” and you will find the words “kind” and “compassionate.” But do the phrases “compassionate slaughter” or “kind slaughter” make any sense? Simply put, there is no kind way to kill an animal who doesn’t need or want to die. Nothing humane happens in a slaughterhouse.

This is the painful truth. If you live in the first world and eat meat (as I did for many years), then you are much like Frank in the first story. The difference is you pay someone else to harm and kill for you, miles away out of sight, and never having to look the animal in her eyes. The first and only time you see the animal is when her butchered parts are vacuum sealed on a refrigerator rack or dripping grease between two buns. And she is there not out of need, but greed. This is the entire idea behind the first argument I would like to give for veganism. It goes something like this:

The Necessity Argument

Premise 1: If there is no need to cause undeserved harm and death to others, it is wrong to do so.

Premise 2: Needlessly killing and eating animals causes undeserved harm and death to others when there is no need to do so.

Conclusion: Thus, needlessly killing and eating animals is wrong.

It’s hard to get more straightforward than Premise 1. It is morally obvious. If you don’t need to hurt or kill others, then you shouldn’t! When someone doesn’t have to die, it is wrong to pay for them to lose their life - especially when that someone is also innocent. Surely you agree that causing needless and undeserved death and violence is wrong. Few moral claims are so uncontroversial. If that is not wrong, what is? Many people don’t even think needless death and violence is justified against our enemies. Meanwhile, animals are blameless. What have they done to deserve our slaughterhouses? The necessity argument is intuitive, airtight, and based on one of the least radical moral premises ever dreamt of. And yet the conclusion – that needlessly killing and eating animals is wrong – is viewed as radical. Is this because veganism really is extreme, or is it because unnecessary violence against animals is so normalized? This is an important question to mull over.

The necessity argument can also be captured by a simple thought experiment. Imagine you find yourself in a closed room. You need to leave but are unsure how until you look toward the room’s center. There, you notice two buttons and a sheet of rules. Picking up the sheet, you read that pressing button #1 will open a door, allowing you to exit the room. Pressing button #2 will open the same door, allowing you to exit also. In fact, the outcome of pressing either button is identical save for one difference: if you open the door by pressing button #2 rather than button #1, then somewhere miles away and out of sight, a young and healthy Golden Retriever with be shot and killed. Both buttons allow you to leave equally as well. One of them just also happens to kill a dog. So, which button will you press to leave?

When I pose this thought experiment to people, they quickly choose button #1. I always ask why. The usual answer goes something like this: “If both buttons let you leave, why pick the one that kills a young and healthy dog? The dog doesn’t want or need to die, so why kill her? You can just press button #1 and leave that way.” I think this is a good answer. Sometimes I follow up by asking the person what they would think of someone who knew all this, but still chose button #2. The replies I hear are often scathing. “I would wonder what was wrong with them.” “Doing that would be pretty f*cked up.” One passionate dog-lover even said “They should be killed!” While these judgements vary, at least one message is common to each: It is wrong to pick button #2 over button #1. Most people believe that pressing the dog-killing button is wrong if an alternative is available.

Now, let’s ask ourselves one more question. Suppose we swapped out a few props in the thought experiment. Suppose that instead of choosing between two buttons, you were choosing between two items on a restaurant menu. Item #1 is nutritious and filling, and so is item #2. You need to eat, and both meals are equally as sufficient. Yet once again, picking item #2 does something else too: It causes the death of a young and healthy dog (or pig, cow, lamb, etc.). This is because item #2 contains parts of that animal’s body – their meat. So, as we did with the first version of the thought experiment, it’s worth asking again: Which item would you choose?

Notice there is no meaningful difference between this version and the one with two buttons. Both hypotheticals are the same. It is just that many of us find ourselves in this second version every day, and so our thinking is clouded by the normalization of it. Only when we ponder the same decision in a less familiar setting, like a room with two buttons, do we get clarity.

Some might object to what I’ve just said. They might say there is a meaningful difference between two buttons and two menu items. One way of arguing this is to say that while there is no personal enjoyment to picking one button over the other, there can be personal enjoyment to picking one equally sufficient menu item over another. The enjoyment people often have in mind here is taste. Sometimes the non-vegan food just tastes better, they say. (Ironically, the non-vegan food they have in mind is usually seasoned with plants. Also, there is no food that vegans have to “give up.” We just buy the plant-based versions. So in this way, “vegan food tastes worse” is often just code for “I’m too unadventurous to try any of the vegan options.” But I’m digressing here!) Let’s just suppose this complaint is true. Let’s suppose that some non-vegan food really does taste better than every vegan alternative. How can we tweak the button version of our thought experiment to account for this difference?

Well, let’s suppose that pressing button #2 makes a more satisfying click than button #1. Maybe button #2 has a nicer weighted feel to it, also. These differences mean that pressing button #2 gives you more personal enjoyment than pressing button #1. Of course, I am talking about pleasant sounds and feelings here rather than pleasant tastes. But why is pleasing one of the five senses any nobler than pleasing the others? If taste pleasure justifies killing an animal, so should other sense pleasures as well. If someone likes the way it sounds to kill a dog, for example, wouldn’t that justify killing her just as much? Or maybe they like the sights and smells of slaughtering a dog. Whatever you might think of such a person, we have to ask: How is killing for taste any better? How is killing to please the tongue any more defensible than killing to please the ears, nose, or eyes? If these pleasures do not warrant bloodshed, then neither does the pleasure of taste. And most people would say that pleasant sights or sounds do not justify killing an animal. This is an argument from consistency, and it is just one reason to think taste does not justify needless killing. But there is another argument we can give. It is the second argument I promised for veganism, and rather than necessity, this one has to do with value. It goes like this:

The Value Argument

Premise 1: It is wrong to treat the life of an animal as less valuable than the taste we might get from eating them.

Premise 2: Needlessly killing and eating animals is treating their life as less valuable than the taste we might get from eating them.

Conclusion: Thus, needlessly killing and eating animals is wrong.

Think about it for a moment. Which do you think is more valuable? Taste or life?¹⁶ When asked, most people quickly say that life is the greater value. To see if that’s right, we can tease out some relevant differences between the two, and then decide for each one whether taste or life is more valuable.

For starters, a nice taste lasts minutes. Nice tastes are also replaceable; equally as nice tastes (if not identical) can be had without needlessly killing and eating animals. On the other hand, an animal’s life lasts years and isn’t replaceable. She’s only got one. When we weigh the two in terms of longevity and scarcity, life is more valuable than taste by a landslide. Also, as much as someone might enjoy eating meat, it is likely far from the most important thing to them. But it’s hard to see what would be more important to an animal than her own life. When we weigh the two in terms of vested interest and personal stakes, here too life is more valuable than taste.

Moreover, notice how we’re weighing two different kinds of value. The value of life is a more meaningful kind than that of a flavor. While alive, an animal can feel a range of emotions: joy, fear, sorrow, curiosity, and many in between. She can witness the world from her own set of eyes. There are relational facts about her life too. She was born. She likely has siblings. As Mr. Rogers once put it, “I just can’t imagine eating anything that has a mother.” One day the animal might become a mother herself. She can experience love not just for her young, but also for humans. Her life has a very meaningful sort of value. But how can we describe the value of a pleasurable taste? It feels nice. Beyond the nice feeling, there isn’t much else to say. Surely an animal’s life is more profound in worth than a shallow base pleasure. When we weigh the two in terms of kinds of value, life is of a more meaningful kind than taste.

Notice how this is all true even though nonhuman animals cannot think like we do. Inevitably, someone by now will have lobbed the charge that I am anthropomorphizing these animals. But this objection only reveals a mistaken binary view of consciousness, where either a creature is as aware as the typical human or hardly aware at all. It is clearly true that nonhuman animals are not as aware as you and I. Accusing me of saying otherwise is attacking a strawman. Yet, this fact does nothing to show that these animals aren’t still pretty damn aware. If you have ever looked into the eyes of a quick-witted dog or cat, you will know what I am talking about. To deny that these animals and the ones we farm have complex mental lives is not only chauvinist and anthropocentric, but it also goes against the science.

Take the famous 2012 Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness, in which a prominent group of international neuroscientists took it upon themselves to finally end the convenient myth that nonhuman animals are unaware and unfeeling. Among the accolades they list for animal sentience, they declare it “unequivocally” true that “the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”¹⁷ Admitting that sentience comes as a ladder, and that these animals are far closer to us than they are to the lowest rung, is only the most realistic thing we can do given the evidence. Yes, it is a blow to the human ego. And yes, it is an inconvenient truth. But it is the truth, and bias is usually our only hurdle to embracing it.

I think it is telling that many people will be extremely sympathetic and hopeful about plant consciousness, while having the upmost suspicion and restraint about animal consciousness. We have seen that science clearly supports the reverse of these attitudes; between the two, animals are the ones who actually have brains and show many of the same behaviors and emotions that we do. Surely, then, this ridiculous double standard is not based in rational thinking, but an irrational bias. Almost every vegan will agree that overall, nonhuman animals are less aware and morally valuable than we are. But an animal doesn’t have to be as valuable as us to be valuable at all. It is still true that dogs, pigs, cows, chickens, fish, cats, and so on, can feel pain and pleasure as they experience the world around them. This fact gives their lives much value, and it is reason enough to stop needlessly killing and eating them. Make no mistake: the question has never been “Are animal lives worth the same as human lives?” That is a popular red herring, and something to which most vegans comfortably answer no. Rather, the real question is “Are animal lives worth more than a pizza topping? A sandwich? A needless and fleeting taste?” That is what this debate is really about. And if you are honest with yourself, I think you will land on the side of life.

By looking at the differences between taste and life, and by affirming the conscious nature of that life, we have demonstrated Premise 1 of the Value Argument. An animal’s life does have more value than our own temporary pleasure. If we needlessly kill and eat them just for a nice taste, we sacrifice the most important thing to that animal – her one and only life – for a most trivial thing to us – a short-lived flavor we could likely get elsewhere. Without eating meat, we would still be alive and healthy. Without her life, that animal would, well, be dead. Choosing mere taste over another being’s very existence is a selfish and cruel thing to do. Many people already have this moral belief about cats and dogs. Imagine how you would feel if halfway through a burger you discovered the meat was from a Golden Retriever. Many would spit it out of their mouth! The thought of an innocent dog being killed just so you can have a few minutes of pleasure is horrible, you likely think. That reveals a praiseworthy and fitting degree of compassion. If we can (and should) have that compassion for dogs and cats, then the same follows for all aware and feeling animals.

Closing Remarks

Before I wrap up, I want to say this: If you read to the end of this article, that says something admirable about you. You are willing to think about whether your choice of food, clothing, or sport is at the expense of voiceless and innocent others. That alone is more than most are willing to do. Yet, if these animals are to be spared death and suffering, our thinking must lead to action. If you (like the great majority of first world consumers) can avoid animal products without risking starvation, I have this to say: You can have compassion and care for nonhuman animals. Yet, if you do, eating them is out of the question. We do not needlessly kill and eat the ones we care about. Rather, at the very least (barring extreme situations) we let them live and cause them no deliberate harm. This is why veganism is in fact the “neutral” position. Living vegan is not going out of one’s way to help animals, it is simply refraining from hurting them. You might not even like some animals very much. I’ve never had the patience for small, yappy terriers myself. But still, I wouldn’t pay someone to kill them. I just leave them alone.

That said, since animal exploitation is so woven into our society, even just refraining from doing harm can seem like an intimidating lifestyle change. (Believe me, I was very hesitant to going vegan at first! I understand how you're likely feeling.) Luckily, many online resources are a just google search away. They can help make the switch to plant-based cheap and effortless. The increasing availability of affordable plant-based alternatives for meat, dairy, and eggs only robs us of more excuses, as well. As I’ve said, there is no food I've had to "give up." I just buy the vegan version. And regardless, as actor and vegan activist Joaquin Phoenix once put it, "It takes nothing away from a human to be kind to an animal." Veganism is not a cost when compared to all there is to gain: better health, peace of mind, becoming a friend of the earth, and finding a unconflicted love for every being who lives, just to name a few. Now that I enjoy these things, I understand why most vegans say their only regret is not switching sooner. A good place to start is here: https://www.vegan.com/how/.

What you choose to do now with veganism is important. No one can make this choice for you. Literally for hundreds of animals, your decision is a matter of life and death. Will they be hanging from a slaughterhouse conveyor, blood spilling for your taste buds? Or will they be saved from this nightmare? It is up to you. Our society is designed to make the wrong choice easy. If only there was a bang and a splatter of blood every time a person’s store-bought meat passed the barcode reader. Instead, we hear a pleasant beep, and for an undeserved ease of conscious, that violence happens miles away out of sight. Luckily, we don't have to be fooled by this corporate trick - this intentional, psychological distancing. We can make the connection. We can see it for what is is. The sale of body parts. I'll close with a line from philosopher and author of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer. "When history looks back, do you want to be counted among the oppressors? Or the liberators? You've got to make that choice."

Comments