Ethics of eating meat
Conversations regarding the ethics of eating meat are focused on whether or not it is moral to eat non-human animals. Ultimately, this is a debate that has been ongoing for millennia, and it remains one of the most prominent topics in food ethics.[1]
Individuals who promote meat consumption do so for a number of reasons, such as health, cultural traditions, religious beliefs,[2] and scientific arguments that support the practice.[3][4] Those who support meat consumption typically argue that making a meat-free diet mandatory would be wrong because it fails to consider the individual nutritional needs of humans at various stages of life, fails to account for biological differences between the sexes, ignores the reality of human evolution, ignores various cultural considerations, or because it would limit the adaptability of the human species.[5]
People who abstain from eating meat are generally known as "vegetarians". They avoid meat for various reasons such as taste preferences, religion, animal welfare, the environmental impact of meat production (environmental vegetarianism), health considerations,[6] and antimicrobial resistance.[7] Vegans also abstain from other animal products, such as dairy products, honey and eggs, for similar reasons.
"Ethical omnivores" are individuals who object to the practices underlying the production of meat, as opposed to the act of consuming meat itself. In this respect, many people who abstain from certain kinds of meat eating and animal products do not take issue with meat consumption in general, provided that the meat and animal products are produced in a specific manner.[8] Ethical omnivores may object to rearing animals for meat in factory farms, killing animals in ways that cause pain, and feeding animals unnecessary antibiotics or hormones. To this end, they may avoid meats such as veal, foie gras, meat from animals that were not free range, animals that were fed antibiotics or hormones, etc.[9]
In a 2014 survey of 406 US philosophy professors, approximately 60% of ethicists and 45% of non-ethicist philosophers said it was at least somewhat "morally bad" to eat meat from mammals.[10] A 2020 survey of 1812 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% said it was not.[11] The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (2017), the most co-signed scientific journal article in history, called (among other things) for a transition to plant-based diets in order to combat climate change.[12]
Animals killed in crop harvesting[edit]
Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the least harm principle does not require giving up all meat. Davis states that a diet containing beef from grass-fed ruminants such as cattle would kill fewer animals than a vegetarian diet, particularly when one takes into account animals killed by agriculture.[88]
This conclusion has been criticized by Jason Gaverick Matheny (founder of in vitro meat organization New Harvest) because it calculates the number of animals killed per acre (instead of per consumer). Matheny says that, when the numbers are adjusted, Davis' argument shows veganism as perpetrating the least harm.[89] Davis' argument has also been criticized by Andy Lamey for being based on only two studies that may not represent commercial agricultural practices. When differentiating between animals killed by farm machinery and those killed by other animals, he says that the studies again show veganism to do the "least harm".[90]
Christopher Bobier maintains that arguments against the consumption of factory-farmed meat can also apply to vegetables produced under factory conditions due to animals killed in the production process (arguing that alternative sources of vegetables mean factory-produced vegetables are not necessary) and thus does not represent a prima facie argument for vegetarianism.[91]