The Ethics of Eating Meat
Introduction
Is it ethical to eat meat? This question is explored by considering the views of Paul Taylor and Peter Singer. Paul Taylor’s biocentric ethic provides a methodical framework for environmental conflict resolution, attempting to enable just and equitable policy decisions. An ethos that morally obligates humans to protect plants and animals based on their inherent value, as equal members of the Earth’s interconnected and interdependent biotic community — a ‘life centred view’, which attempts to consider the existence of an organism from its own perspective. Taylor promotes a pseudo religion by drawing credence from philosophical pro-environmental worldviews that are fundamentally at odds with science and empirical evidence. Peter Singer strives to liberate animals from unacceptable anthropocentric exploitation by attempting to humanise them: his argument is based in utility and the associated evils of inflicting pain on sentient beings. These impassioned and subjective views fall short of reality and serve to deny humanity its prevailing and consistent character: one which has a propensity for innovation; a will and motivation to improve one’s status; and the perception of social justice. All of which are intricately connected to eating the flesh of living animals. The question of ethically eating meat is currently irrelevant, however, considering the views of Taylor and Singer, its efficacy will eventually prevail, shrouded in ideals of inherent value and appeals to morality, but driven by progress and development.
Paul Taylor’s Biocentric Ethics
Taylor’s belief lies in the inherent worth of individual organisms (entities), which serves as the moral basis for anthropocentric interactions with the Earth’s wild fauna and flora, and validation for his argument for the protection of their welfare. His ethos is life centred: promoting and protecting Earths biotic community for the good of their own sake, with ambitions, for all organisms to maintain an interdependent healthy existence (Pierce & VanDeVeer 2003:202). The well-being of all life on Earth is accepted as an end, not a means to an end, and thus carries weight in all considerations by rational and moral agents (Pierce & VanDeVeer 2003:202). Biocentric ethics are further explained by referring to elements of Kantian ethics: duty bound; obligatory; based on a universal set of rules; and applying to all entities without a contradiction occurring (Pierce & VanDeVeer 2003:203). It requires life to be: a) ‘disinterested’, i.e. independent of the self-interest of an agent; b) obligatory; c) having a disposition to judge daily life in the context of how all species are treated. However, it is important to note that inherent value is subjectively assigned to all living entities, and cannot be discovered by empirical observation or scientific investigation (Pierce & VanDeVeer 2003:205). In summation, the four main elements to Taylor’s biocentric ethic are: a) a belief that is aligned with an environmental worldview, where all life is considered to be on an equal footing within Earth’s biological community; b) all ecosystems are interconnected and interdependent; c) each living organisms is a teleological centre of life; and d) humans are not superior to other species. It is a doctrine of impartiality, where all living things have inherent value and are equal, therefore, no consideration is given to any form of hierarchy. Taylor prescribes importance to all life and recognises that human conduct has quantifiable impact on the Earth’s species and ecosystems. He recognises that humans are selfish and as such attempts to establish a system which embraces a respectful and ecologically informed attitude towards nature (Ally, Bentley, Cloete, Kretzschmar, Olivier and Van den Berg 2010:440-443).
Paul Taylor’s framework for environmental conflict resolution
In order understand Taylor’s framework an agent is required to grasp the particularity of an entity as a teleological centre of life and adopt a heightened sense of consciousness. Forming a foundation for an attitude of respect for nature, guiding thoughts and actions of resource utilisation and interaction with other living entities (Ally, et al. 2010:411). According to Taylor there are five priority principles that can be utilised when attempting to resolve conflicts between humans: a) the principle of self-defence — states that it is permissible for moral agents to protect themselves against dangerous entities by killing them; b) the principle of proportionality — for all entities basic interests supersede non-basic interests; c) the principle of minimum wrong — the risk to nonhuman organisms should be minimised if the risk is unavoidable in the pursuit of important human interests; d)the principle of distributive justice — damage or harm to nonhuman organisms that affects its inherent value should be minimised, ensuring that the least number of organisms are affected; and e) the principle of restitutive justice — to compensate for the loss or damage of entities by relocation or reintroduction initiatives (Ally, et al. 2010:455-461).
The principle of self defence
Defending oneself from dangerous organisms is possible when moral agents cannot avoid contact with the organisms and cannot prevent them negatively affecting the environment in which moral agents exist. Moral agents are advised to distance themselves from dangerous organisms in order to limit exposure and conflict. Affected moral agents are required to use measures which cause the least possible harm to the dangerous organisms. Precedence is given to basic interests, interests that should be ascertained from the perspective of the organism in question (Ally, et al. 2010:456).
The principle of proportionality
During conflicts between humans and nonhumans greater significance must be given to the basic interests of all the presiding organisms. Nonhumans are not considered to be instruments to nonbasic human ends as it denies them inherent worth and value (Ally, et al. 2010:458).
The principle of minimum wrong
Humans should not pursue nonbasic interests if there is an alternative solution or action that will result in less damage or disruption to nonhuman organisms. This principle applies under four conditions: a) when the basic interests of nonhuman organisms are unavoidably competing with the nonbasic interests of humans; b) when human interests are not intrinsically incompatible with the respect for nature; c) when nonbasic human interests have a detrimental effect on the basic interests of nonhuman organisms; d) when human interests are of paramount importance and detrimental effects on nonhuman organisms is unavoidable (Ally, et al. 2010:460).
The principle of distributive justice
The most fair and equitable solution is pursued when resolving conflicting claims, choosing a course of action where the least number of individual organisms are affected. It must be acknowledged that sometimes entities are harmed irrespective of the circumstance and efforts to avoid harm, consequently, action must be taken to rectify these wrongs through restitutive justice (Ally, et al. 2010:460).
The principle of restitutive justice
Unavoidable injustices are rectified by restitutive action, an attempt to restore balance between human and nonhuman entities. This may take the form of habitat restoration, species relocation and species reintroduction (Ally, et al. 2010:460).
Peter Singers Utilitarianism
Peter Singer’s views express a moral outrage at the exploitation of nature with a focus on efforts to liberate all animals. His position is uniquely centred between biocentric and anthropocentric views and is considered to be ‘extensionist’: adopting ideas from human ethics, such as suffering and the idea of rights. These views are not expressly biocentric but campaign for the liberty and equality of sentient beings, capitalising on an argument based in utility, which accepts that in is unjust to inflict pain upon animals. Singer neglects the assumption of inherent value but rather commits to a philosophy where animals are humanised and as such are not to be treated as resources. Motivation for his philosophy is exemplified by the ability of higher mammals to exhibit human qualities, thus their exploitation is tantamount to racism, sexism or any form of human discrimination.
Denying human universal traits and embracing the necessary exploitation of animals
Agriculture has enabled humanity to progress from hunter gatherer subsistence living to a modern circumstance of improved health, education and access to resources. Protein, i.e. the flesh of animals, has played an instrumental part in this developmental process and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Taylor and Singer attempt to contribute to a growing ‘religion’, an environmental philosophy, which presumes to value the inherent nature of all sentient beings but neglects to identify with the practical necessity of ‘sentient’ animals in a modern, multifaceted, economic anthropogenic system, which is fundamentally intertwined into the consumption of meat. Taylor’s ethic of ecological sensitivity and supporting framework for resolving conflicts between the environment and anthropocentric activity fails to recognise anthropogenic historical circumstance and ingenuity.
Conclusion
Taylor’s biocentric ethic and subsequent methodological framework for addressing conflict between humans and nonhumans is in line with environmental world views, expressing a concern and respect for all life and the balanced interdependent systems which they create. However, these views do not give credence to inherent human universal traits and global historical circumstance, which has evolved into a modern world of improved education, health and access to resources. Thus, at present, his methodological framework falls short of addressing the question of ethically eating meat, as it will be unethical to not eat meat. Taylor’s methodology and Singer’s views on animal liberation fail to recognise what it means to be human, they neglect human universal traits and as such only serve to strengthen the foundations of environmental world views, with insignificant impact on the plight of sentient beings. However, as humanity progresses and population grows, and resources dwindle, our ability to produce affordable meat will be adversely impacted. Education, improved health and access to resources will contribute to a circumstance where the ethics of eating meat will carry weight and thus be seriously considered, as it will be supported by human universal traits that feed into an environment which is created by us, the dominant and prevailing species.
