Ethical Vegetarianism?

A myriad of studies on the adaptation of vegetarian lifestyles in industrialized countries (that is, in situations where dietary restriction is not a necessity, but an individual choice) have drawn the conclusion that there are two basic rationales behind the switch from an omnivorous diet to a wholly vegetarian one: perceived health benefits or ethical concerns over the treatment of animals in captivity (Fox and Ward) (Jabs, Devine and Sobal). The health benefits of a meatless diet are well documented. Vegetarians who consume a well-balanced diet are less likely to suffer from nutrient deficiencies as well as less likely to suffer from chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia (high blood cholesterol) (Sabaté).

Less studied, however, are the ethical implications of a diet rich in animal products. Prior to the 19^th century, the most ardent proponents of a vegetarian diet were philosophers who argued that innocent creatures should not be killed for food, or who cited religious principles that abstaining from meat would help one to transcend the physical world (Wharton). The tendency of meat to rot and foul quickly in an age before proper refrigeration only helped to promote the notion that flesh was, in some way, tainted (Wharton).

In a modern context, progressive outrage over “factory farming,” unethical livestock handling, the rise of the “pro-organic” movement, and fears of foodborne illness has led to a flurry of pro-vegetarian or –vegan sentiment. Recent publications and documentaries such as the Academy Award nominated Food, Inc., though not explicitly “pro-vegetarian”, have dramatically increased public awareness of the meat packaging and livestock industry. In response, organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), alongside conventional media outlets have made efforts to make blatantly unethical practices known to the general public.

The question, then, often posited either explicitly or implicitly alongside such news, is whether one should, given the availability and variety of meat substitutes, cease to consume animal products because of a perceived moral obligation.

Most basic ethical theories would, at least in some form, provide a resounding “yes.” Though few, if any, would go so far as to call a nonhuman “animal” sentient, many philosophers at least recognize animals as fellow beings, and thus deserving of respect. Socrates, in Plato’s Republic determines that slaughtering animals for food will potentially hinder “us in achieving happiness” (Republic 50-1). In Crito, Plato goes further to state that, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you” (Five Dialogues 49c). Man and beast are not equitable, but the same theory could be applied: eating meat, without explicit need (i.e. extreme hunger, lack of other nutrition), harms the consumer morally because of its lack of necessity and hence, cruelness.

Immanuel Kant’s Ends-Means Problematic, which states essentially that each individual should be treated not as the ends to another’s happiness, but as a means, through which mutual satisfaction can be gained, does not explicitly address animals, but can be readily applied to the concept of a moral obligation to abstain from meat. Animals, Kant addresses in other texts, are not sentient, and thus, may be utilized as a means to human happiness (Egonsson 473).

However, this idea contradicts Kant’s own Categorical Imperative ([One is] never to act otherwise than so that [he] could also will that [his] maxim should become a universal law”) (Kant 27). According to some ethical scholars, it can be argued within reason that killing and consuming animals for food corrupts human sensitivity to animal, and subsequently, human cruelty, which defies Kant’s Imperative (Egonsson 480-3). According to a variety of reports, including a Senate address by Senator Robert Byrd, there is demonstrable cruelty within the livestock raising industry (Byrd). Therefore, willingly supporting an industry that derives profits from the mistreatment or abuse of animals is immoral on the grounds that one is indirectly condoning human desensitization towards violence, and is hence unethical.

Even John Stewart Mill’s (or Jeremy Bentham’s) Utilitarian principles must follow this same line of reasoning. In Utilitarianism, Mill advances the theory that happiness is the end (in keeping with Kant’s ideals): “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (Mill 35). One would have to apply then, the same logic as is applied to Kantian theory. That is, the only way to achieve universal happiness is to advocate actions that facilitate only happiness as an end result. If animal cruelty begets insensitivity to human cruelty, and animal cruelty is present within the livestock industry, eating meat is not a means to universal happiness, and is inherently immoral.

The purpose of ethical theory is to attempt to find a universal through which the happiness and well being of the entire populace might be achieved – a utopia of sorts. Though each of the above mentioned schools of thought have been proven to be flawed in some way that keeps them from being truly universal, each has also been shown to be a viable moral code and way through which one can nearly objectively judge the morality of their actions. With that said, neither Platonic, Kantian, nor Mill’s ethical theories will, when tested to their full limitations, provide for the ethical consumption of mass-produced meat or animal products.

Works Cited

Byrd, Robert C. "On Cruelty to Animals." Address. Washington D.C. 9 July 2001.

Animal Welfare Institute. Animal Welfare Institute. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Dan, Egonsson. "Kant’s Vegetarianism." The Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (1997): 473-

83. Print.

Fox, Nick and Katie Ward. "Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of

vegetarian motivations." Appetite 2.3 (2008): 422-9.

Jabs, Jennifer, Carol M Devine and Jeffery Sobal. "Model of the Process of Adopting

Vegetarian Diets: Health Vegetarians and Ethical Vegetarians ." Journal of

Nutrition Education and Behavior 30.4 (1998): 196-202.

Kant, Immanuel. The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals.

T.K. Abbott, trans. New York: Prometheus, 1988. Print.

Mill, John Stewart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2001. Print.

Plato. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo.

G. Grube, trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2002. Print.

---, Thomas Taylor, and Theodore Wratislaw. The Republic of Plato. London [usw.:

Scott, 1890. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

Sabaté, Joan. "The contribution of vegetarian diets to health and disease: a paradigm

shift?" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78.3 (2003): 502S-7S.

Wharton, James C. "Historical Development of Vegetarianism." The American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59 (1994): 1103S-9S.