I am glad you brought this up
because I think it is an important point.
The consumption of animal products is a very contentious topic that
involves a great deal of interrelated issues.
One would be completely justified in pointing to factory farming, the
environment, the economy, world hunger, or human health concerns when
suggesting that people should become vegetarians. All of these are very good reasons and,
particularly when taken cumulatively, could be used to argue that vegetarianism
is morally obligatory.
However I do believe that these arguments are distinct
from the basic argument that meat eating is wrong. Although the issues are very much
interrelated, I think it is important to distinguish between the basic argument
and the complex web of correlating factors.
For instance, let’s say I visit my friend’s small family farm. They have
recently slaughtered one of their cows, and offer me a hamburger for
lunch. In this case, I cannot rely on
any of the previously mentioned issues, but must confront the basic question of
whether or not killing this cow for food was wrong.
I know people have very strong feelings either way, and
in this post I will stop short of taking a side. I simply think it is important to recognize
the distinction. Arguments for
vegetarianism based on concerns regarding factory farms, the environment, and
world hunger are legitimate. Yet
debating the morality of meat eating is an important question in and of
itself. I think discussions could make
more progress if the issues were recognized as connected, but still somewhat
separate.
