Sacred; inviolable.
~~~~~~~
Part I
As mentioned in class, I think my answer to whether or not the average American should eat meat would be no, but under the proviso that this conclusion of my own not be arbitrarily or forcibly imposed on those who have no mind to follow it and probably would not anyway. As was seen with Prohibition, there is little sense in instituting a law most of the country would disagree with.
As that is the state of America today concerning meat eating, I think the most conducive platform to reform concerning animals begins with making the moral issue more visible—far too often the argument against meat eating is primarily concerned with whether or not the creature suffers, not whether or not it is wrong to kill the creature (which occurs for many different purposes, but one of the easier categories to discuss, I think, concerns killing them for food).
I believe the average American should not eat meat because they have the choice—the average American is monetarily equipped to choose their diet, and as such (ought implies can) owes it to themselves (again, of course, with respect to dietary needs) at least to consider why it is acceptable to kill and eat an animal and not a human. I am not here trying to establish the sameness of humans and nonhuman animals—as I myself believe there are valuable differentiations among living organisms (such as insects/plants and sentient creatures) that are morally relevant and important to keeping the argument from becoming a “all life is holy” fallacy.
Nor am I suggesting that animals are necessarily more valuable than humans merely because of their moral patienthood—rather, I suggest that we find a non-arbitrary criteria for determining why it is morally acceptable to kill a sentient animal and not a human.
2 comments:
I like your example of prohibition and it works well. Imagine the horror if slaughterhouses were an underground operation.
Also, we agree on 'ought implying can' and although i think the average American shouldn't eat meat, biochemically most should consume some animal product because most are so poorly nutritionally educated and unwilling to explore different tastes. Its really frustrating, especially since most just need to pay attention to labels.
Good point on focusing the moral issue on the act of killing the animal, aside from the suffering and harm caused.
It is no nutritional panacea to consume animals or their products; I assume, in contrast, that the ill-effects of maintaining a conventional American diet will in most instances far exceed the clear benefits of simply removing these products from one's diet.
Post a Comment