Why It’s Not Okay to Eat Suicidal Pigs
A moral dilemma that’s not as straightforward as it seems.
Do you like to eat meat? Me too. Whether it’s roast chicken, a burger, or bacon, its juicy, salty, or smoky taste is divine. Imagining life without it is almost impossible.
Yet, studying philosophy and the ethics of eating meat over the last few years has taken the sheen off this pastime. Every time I partake in a juicy pork chop, there is a pang of nagging guilt at the back of my mind that has only been getting louder in recent years.
So, what if it was possible to eat meat while avoiding these ethical issues? What if there were pigs that wanted to be eaten, would this solve my problem? This is what Julian Baggini explores in his book, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, inspired by Douglas Adams’ The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Baggini asks us to imagine a pig called Priscilla who has been genetically engineered to speak and has told us she wants to be eaten more than anything else in the world. It’s her lifetime ambition and on the day of her slaughter she will wake up with a keen sense of anticipation. Would it, therefore, be acceptable to kill Priscilla?
Baggini gives us many reasons why it would: it seems disrespectful not to eat her and humanely killing Priscilla wouldn’t create any pain and would also produce happiness (by providing an ethical vegetarian with that sweet taste of meat with a clear conscience).
However, as much as I would like to be, I’m not convinced.
While this may seem like an open and shut case on the surface, there are still significant ethical problems with eating dear Priscilla, this is because it is very easy to fall into what philosopher Peter Singer calls ‘speciesism’.
This is where we are prejudiced towards our own species for no rational reason, but simply because of the way others look. Singer says both human and non-human animals have the same interests (to live), and both can feel pain.
While some might object that humans are by far the most intelligent species, easily separating them from all other species, Singer replies that not all humans are more intelligent than animals (such as babies and those with severe learning disabilities), yet we still award them moral status. The only thing that separates humans and non-human animals is their species, but surely this isn’t a morally relevant difference, as it only changes the way they look? Therefore animals should be given moral status too.
The same argument can be used when considering the killing of Priscilla. Imagine it was a young, healthy human named Paul that pleaded to be eaten. Paul said it was his ultimate goal in life, and he wanted to die right that instant and be consumed. Would it be acceptable to kill Paul?
My intuitive reaction is to say of course not! Paul sounds deeply troubled and needs help. The moral and virtuous thing to do seems to be to care for Paul rather than kill him. There are so many things in the world for Paul to experience that he will no longer be able to if he is killed — robbing him of so much potential pleasure and happiness. Furthermore, killing and eating Paul would likely bring great pain to his friends and family.
So, if it’s not okay to eat a suicidal human, why would it be okay to eat a suicidal pig?
If it sounds like Paul is deeply troubled, then surely Priscilla must also be deeply troubled. Therefore, Priscilla also needs help, not killed. Both Priscilla and Paul have so much more to experience in this world and potential pleasures to enjoy.
While Paul is more intelligent (allowing him to access higher pleasures of the mind like watching films, forming deep and fulfilling relationships and of course reading Medium posts) pigs are remarkably intelligent animals and are still able to experience pleasure and happiness in life. Priscilla and Paul will of course die at some point, so why not let them enjoy life first before they meet their demise?
The reasons we used to justify killing Priscilla no longer seem valid when trying to justify killing Paul. We said it would be disrespectful not to honor Priscilla’s wish of being eaten, but it doesn’t seem disrespectful to not honor Paul’s wish as Paul’s wish seems irrational and crazy.
We have already established that Paul and Priscilla being from different species is morally irrelevant, so if our reasons for killing Priscilla don’t hold up for killing Paul, it also means they don’t hold up for Priscilla.
Therefore, I’m still not convinced about the ethics of eating a pig that wants to be eaten. Instead, it feels we should be getting it help so that it can enjoy the precious life it has. But what do you think? I would love to get a discussion going in the comments on this issue, as I’m sure some people vehemently disagree with me on this issue. Let me know where you stand on eating Priscilla.
If you enjoyed this post, you may also enjoy this discussion I posted on the moral dilemma of whether to save six chimpanzees or one baby:
