Ethics and complex questions

The New York Times is having an essay contest asking the question, “Tell us why it is ethical to eat meat.”  As I see it, the question posed by the NY Times opens up a can of worms. We, as beings capable of thoughtful action, have an obligation to be thoughtful in our actions as they pertain to other life. I do not see the eating of beef as being inherently any more or less moral than the eating of soy products. Did the cow live a good life? Was it killed swiftly, and with respect? No? Well then, we have a problem. Did the tofu come from genetically modified soy grown with lots of chemical inputs in an area cut out of the Amazon? Yes? Well then, we have a problem. The rate at which we, as Americans, use up resources is unethical because it is not sustainable and not a lifestyle that everyone in the world who might want to could emulate—we would need more Earths. An action is not ethical if it does not consider the repercussions for future generations. So I might also ask: What quantity of petroleum products went into raising the cattle? Think about the pesticides of the corn for feed; think about the tractors and combines; think about packaging the beef; think about shipping it. What quantity of petroleum products went into the tofu or tempeh? Think about the pesticides for the soy bean plants; think about the tractors and combines; think about shipping the soybeans to processing plants; think about the processing; think about the packaging; think about shipping the soy products to stores.

This is not to say that we should stop eating! And, being less than wealthy myself, I understand the constraints of budget upon food-buying choices—I just happen to be lucky about where I live, and thus my affordable and simultaneously ethical food choices. But what we should do is make every action a deliberate and thoughtful one. And that is what I would really say to the judges on the contest panel. 

Nothing is so simple as we would like to pretend it could be.

The following is a slightly different form of the essay than what I sent in:

It is very easy for us as human beings to frame questions, thoughts, and beliefs in black and white terms, no matter how nuanced the issues are in reality. To ask the question, “tell us why it is ethical to eat meat?” is, perhaps, to ask the question from already limited thinking. The phrasing of the question calls upon the respondent to use the strong language of dichotomy: good/bad, right/wrong. Ethics in general, and in this case specifically the ethics of eating meat, is far too complex an issue to be approached with such a yes-or-no mindset. There are many questions we need to ask ourselves about eating meat. There are factors that need to be considered, and repercussions to every action. Only through looking at the broader picture of the meat that we do or do not eat can we come to any informed decision about the ethics of that decision.

The first of the many factors, questions, and repercussions we need to think about is domestication.  If everyone stopped eating meat, there would still be a multitude of domesticated animals in the world. While it is romantic to think that we could all stop eating meat and yet people would continue to keep all the domesticated-for-meat animals as pets, it is unrealistic. So what would happen to domesticated-for-meat animals if we stopped eating meat? Would we turn them loose, let them die in “natural” circumstances completely new to them? Even if they survived, what would be the impact on the ecosystems into which they were released? Would we get annoyed at all the cows and pigs tromping through our gardens, rooting things up, eating our vegetables? Would that make us angry, would it make us feel justified in shooting these “pests”? How could it possibly be more ethical to shoot as a pest or let die as an afterthought an animal that was brought into this world for the sole purpose of being eaten? How is that respectful to the animal? And what would we do with all the male dairy animals born that we didn’t need? We only need a couple bulls to keep a many cows producing milk and replacement heifers. So what about all the other male dairy animals? Not eating meat has repercussions, too. To act ethically we must think of all the repercussions to any action we take.

Another factor to be considered is the eating of meat from non-domesticated animals: hunting. In the US, the percentage of people who get there food from game is relatively small. The question still should be considered: Is it any more or less ethical to kill a wild animal for meat? These are not animals that are dependent upon us for their food and safety; many of the complexities of meat-eating vanish when the meat in question is from a wild animal. Not all of them, however. We have altered ecosystems, destroyed the normal predator-prey ratios. If deer exist in such numbers and without their traditional predators, is it not our obligation to keep their populations in check, both for their health and the health of the ecosystem? And would it not be significantly more wrong to simply kill those over-populated deer, rather than put their lives to use by using them to fuel our own? I do not believe that it is unethical to kill another animal in order to feed ourselves. Human beings need protein, and we are, in fact, animals. We have a number of unique attributes, not the least of which is to think abstractly, philosophically, ethically. To what extent does that make us different than other animals? What we sometimes forget in our forays into the abstract and the ethical is that we are, in the end, another animal—a clever and complex predator. Is there an ethical problem with the role of the predator? Is there an ethical problem when wolves kill elk, or larger primates kill smaller ones? Are we not part of a larger ecosystem?

It would be naive to think that we could separate the ethics of eating meat from the ethics of how those animals were raised. Thousands of years ago, human beings started domesticating animals. In The River Cottage Meat Book, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall describes the morality of domestication and the killing of animals for food as “A contract of good husbandry” in which “we may claim the moral authority to kill animals for food only on the basis that we are offering them a better deal in life than they would get without our help.”  We are in breach of that contract every time we keep them from appropriate habitat, feed them things they did not evolve to eat, hurt them. But we are not made less ethical by the basics of tending to domesticated animals. We should raise animals under conditions that let them lead good lives, not matter how short. I do not believe that it is unethical to kill and eat an animal that was born for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten if that animal was raised and killed with respect. Some might ask how killing could ever involve respect.  As humans, we can be violent. We can kill in anger, in thoughtlessness, and accidentally. We can also honor the life of an animal, thank it for the food it will provide, and speed it along. At its most ethical, the slaughter of an animal for meat is a thoughtful endeavor.

Another complex factor to be considered is that not eating meat does not automatically absolve us of the ethical responsibility that comes with everything we do, particularly eating. Vegetarianism, too, should not be seen to be without death. Every field that is harvested by machine has birds and mice and other small critters living in it. Ground-nesting birds are killed when grain is harvested. Humans dispense all sorts of chemicals to kill and keep rodents from food stores. How is that any less killing? Is it somehow more ethical to kill an animal if you are not going to eat it? Is the death of an animal somehow more excusable if it is a pest or just a casualty of circumstances? I don’t believe so. We must accept that deaths happen, and to try to ensure that they happen for a reason, and without cruelty. 

The question cannot simply be, “Is eating meat ethical?” it must be more nuanced. It must be, “What are the repercussions of my day-to-day choices and actions? What do I affect by eating this? How?” Eating meat is neither inherently ethical nor inherently unethical. It is rife with obligation and complexity. We must consider the life and death of the animal, the impact of its life and death on the ecosystem, and the repercussions for that animal’s life and the lives of its offspring if we choose not to eat it. Only then can we live, and eat, ethically. To eat in an ethical manner requires a deep awareness, and long-term thinking.