Is Meat Murder?

By Jack Wearing

Until recently, I hadn't given the idea of vegetarianism much serious thought. Eating meat is a widely unquestioned norm in this country, and I’ve done so all my life, as have the vast majority of people around me. Some of my friends go so far as to profess an active dislike of vegetarians, and the self-righteousness of some outspoken animal enthusiasts is admittedly off-putting (including Morrissey, even if he is one of my favourite lyricists). Consequently, I had no real motivation to examine the moral significance of eating meat. That changed when I read Practical Ethics by preference utilitarian Peter Singer, a book that forced me to consider more carefully my position on the use of animals as food.

In Practical Ethics, Singer presents a very compelling moral argument for vegetarianism. Early in the book, Singer establishes the idea of ‘the principle of equal consideration of interests’. In his words, the essence of this principle is ‘that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions’. The ability to feel pleasure and pain, and thus to have interests, is what makes humans equal. This view of equality justifies ideas already widely held that someone shouldn’t be discriminated against because they are of a particular race or gender, are of a particular age or intelligence, or are disabled.
He goes on to argue that this basis for human equality must be extended to non-humans as well. He argues that what he calls ‘speciesism’ – discrimination against non-human animals - is no better than racism or sexism when using the equal consideration of interests as the basis for equality. The crux of his argument is that we have no real grounds for giving the interests of animals less consideration than we give the interests of humans. This is summed up in a quote from the father of modern utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham: 'The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?' Being able to suffer or feel pleasure is a pre-requisite for having ‘interests’ at all, unlike other traits, such as intelligence, and because of this common ability to suffer, Singer argues that we must give animals’ interests the same weight that we give humans’. From this, he concludes that we must not eat animals that have been made to suffer during life by our improper treatment of them, as this would be to give greater weight to our petty interests than to the more serious interests of the animals.

Of course, Singer goes into far greater detail in the book than I have space for here, and if you were unconvinced by my summary, I suggest you read Practical Ethics yourself; he is far more persuasive a writer than I am, and he takes a lot of time to consider oppositions to his argument, too. Having read his book, I researched vegetarianism and livestock production further, and discovered that aside from moral reasons, there are other justifications for considering a vegetarian (or even vegan) diet. According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions; surprisingly, a higher share than transport. The report also holds the livestock industry largely responsible for land degradation, water pollution, threats to biodiversity and deforestation.

And yet, despite all of this evidence that becoming a vegetarian would be an extremely beneficial decision, I still eat meat. Maybe it’s hypocritical to preach the benefits of vegetarianism while not practising it myself, but I’m sure you’ll agree that making such a profound change in lifestyle after years of enjoying meat is hardly an easy decision. My goal is to be a vegetarian one day, but currently I’m satisfied with trying to reduce my meat intake, and to only eat free range meat. This issue is certainly an uncomfortable one to think about, but it’s one that I feel shouldn’t be ignored, and I hope the material I’ve presented here is as thought-provoking for you as it is for me.