The Meat Eaters

Last updated

"The Meat Eaters" is a 2010 essay by the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, published as an op-ed in The New York Times . In the essay, McMahan asserts that humans have a moral obligation to stop eating meat and, in a conclusion considered to be controversial, that humans also have a duty to prevent predation by individuals who belong to carnivorous species, if we can do so without inflicting greater harm overall.

Contents

Background

McMahan was inspired to write on the topic by discussions with the moral philosopher Oscar Horta, who introduced him to the topic of wild animal suffering. McMahan considered the issue to be significant and was given the opportunity to write a blog piece for "the research triangle", based in North Carolina, which The New York Times also published. [1]

Summary

McMahan argues that humans should stop eating animals because it is inherently harmful and morally indefensible; [2] he also asserts that the suffering that animals experience in the wild is morally relevant and that we should intervene to reduce this suffering when we have the means to do so. [1] Following this view, McMahan contends that humans have an obligation to prevent carnivorous animals from preying on other animals and addresses caveats around this idea, as well as defending against a number of counter-arguments. [2] He concludes by embracing the "heretical" conclusion that engineering the extinction of carnivorous species would be morally good, if it could be carried out without causing more harm than the suffering that would be prevented. [3]

Reception

McMahan's argument has been described as "interesting to consider", if people are willing to suspend their disbelief. [2] The essay has also been called "thought-provoking" and described as making a plausible argument for at least a drastic reduction in the number of individuals who belong to carnivorous species, as well as the changing of carnivorous species to become herbivorous. [3] It has been asserted that McMahan's arguments are consequentialist, but the essay actually operates within a rights-based framework. [4]

One critic labelled McMahan a "poor armchair ecologist"; [5] another asserted that: "McMahan's advocacy reflects an unhealthy obsession with suffering that I think is hurting society." [6] Negative reactions to the essay have been described as revealing how "deeply rooted the prejudice that we shouldn't go 'against nature' seems to be." [3]

In the same year, McMahan published a follow-up essay, "Predators: A Response", in which he responds to the objections of his critics and employs a thought experiment which asks whether it would be good to allow the Siberian tiger, an already endangered carnivorous species, to go extinct. [7] McMahan later published his arguments as "The Moral Problem of Predation", in the 2015 book Philosophy Comes to Dinner. [8] "The Meat Eaters" was included in The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments, edited by Simon Critchley and Peter Catapano. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carnivore</span> Organism that eats mostly or exclusively animal tissue

A carnivore, or meat-eater, is an animal or plant whose food and energy requirements derive from the consumption of animal tissues whether through hunting or scavenging.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Speciesism</span> Discrimination against non-human creatures solely on the basis of their species membership

Speciesism is a term used in philosophy regarding the treatment of individuals of different species. The term has several different definitions within the relevant literature. Some sources specifically define speciesism as discrimination or unjustified treatment based on an individual's species membership, while other sources define it as differential treatment without regard to whether the treatment is justified or not. Richard Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species." Speciesism results in the belief that humans have the right to use non-human animals, which scholars say is pervasive in the modern society. Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wildlife</span> Undomesticated organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans

Wildlife refers to undomesticated animal species, but has come to include all organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans. Wildlife was also synonymous to game: those birds and mammals that were hunted for sport. Wildlife can be found in all ecosystems. Deserts, plains, grasslands, woodlands, forests, and other areas, including the most developed urban areas, all have distinct forms of wildlife. While the term in popular culture usually refers to animals that are untouched by human factors, most scientists agree that much wildlife is affected by human activities. Some wildlife threaten human safety, health, property, and quality of life. However, many wild animals, even the dangerous ones, have value to human beings. This value might be economic, educational, or emotional in nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Pearce (philosopher)</span> British transhumanist

David Pearce is a British transhumanist philosopher. He is the co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association, currently rebranded and incorporated as Humanity+. Pearce approaches ethical issues from a lexical negative utilitarian perspective.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics of eating meat</span> Food ethics topic

Conversations regarding the ethics of eating meat are focused on whether or not it is moral to eat non-human animals. Ultimately, this is a debate that has been ongoing for millennia, and it remains one of the most prominent topics in food ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Rachels</span> American philosopher and ethicist

James Webster Rachels was an American philosopher who specialized in ethics and animal rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mylan Engel</span> American philosopher

Mylan Engel Jr. is a full professor of philosophy at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

Jefferson Allen McMahan is an American moral philosopher. He has been Sekyra and White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford since 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wild animal suffering</span> Suffering of animals living outside direct human control

Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by non-human animals living outside of direct human control, due to harms such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals, as well as psychological stress. Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence. An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution and the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.

<i>Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows</i> Book by Melanie Joy

Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism is a 2009 book by American social psychologist Melanie Joy about the belief system and psychology of meat eating, or "carnism". Joy coined the term carnism in 2001 and developed it in her doctoral dissertation in 2003. Carnism is a subset of speciesism, and contrasts with ethical veganism, the moral commitment to abstain from consuming or using meat and other animal products. In 2020, an anniversary edition of the book was published by publisher Red Wheel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carnism</span> Ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products

Carnism is a concept used in discussions of humanity's relation to other animals, defined as a prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat. Carnism is presented as a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defense mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions. The term carnism was coined by social psychologist and author Melanie Joy in 2001 and popularized by her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (2009).

The Stone is the New York Times philosophy series, edited by the Times opinion editor Peter Catapano and moderated by Simon Critchley. It was established in May 2010 as a regular feature of The New York Times Opinion section, with the goal of providing argument and commentary informed by or with a focus on philosophy. The series, as described on the Times website "features the writing of contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless." More than a dozen of the essays in the series have been chosen as winners of the American Philosophical Association's public op-ed contests. Works from the series have been collected into two volumes — "The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments" and "Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments," both published by Liveright.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscar Horta</span> Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher

Óscar Horta Álvarez is a Spanish animal activist and moral philosopher who is currently a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Anthropology at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) and one of the co-founders of the organization Animal Ethics. He is known for his work in animal ethics, especially around the problem of wild animal suffering. He has also worked on the concept of speciesism and on the clarification of the arguments for the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. In 2022, Horta published his first book in English, Making a Stand for Animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics</span>

The relationship between animal ethics and environmental ethics concerns the differing ethical consideration of individual nonhuman animals—particularly those living in spaces outside of direct human control—and conceptual entities such as species, populations and ecosystems. The intersection of these two fields is a prominent component of vegan discourse.

Thomas Lepeltier is a French independent scholar, essayist and science writer specializing in the history and philosophy of science and applied ethics, known in particular for his contributions to the field of animal law. He is the author of several philosophical works on animal ethics such as L'imposture intellectuelle des carnivores and of science history books including Darwin hérétique and Univers parallèles. Known initially as a science historian, he now mainly advocates in defense of animals in the French media.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethics of uncertain sentience</span> Applied ethics issue

The ethics of uncertain sentience refers to questions surrounding the treatment of and moral obligations towards individuals whose sentience—the capacity to subjectively sense and feel—and resulting ability to experience pain is uncertain; the topic has been particularly discussed within the field of animal ethics, with the precautionary principle frequently invoked in response.

Catia Faria is a Portuguese moral philosopher and activist for animal rights and feminism. She is assistant professor in Applied Ethics at the Complutense University of Madrid, and is a board member of the UPF-Centre for Animal Ethics. Faria specialises in normative and applied ethics, especially focusing on how they apply to the moral consideration of non-human animals. In 2022, she published her first book, Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature.

<i>Wild Animal Ethics</i> Book about wild animal suffering and ethics

Wild Animal Ethics: The Moral and Political Problem of Wild Animal Suffering is a 2020 book by the philosopher Kyle Johannsen, that examines whether humans, from a deontological perspective, have a duty to reduce wild animal suffering. He concludes that such a duty exists and recommends effective interventions that could be potentially undertaken to help these sentient individuals.

<i>Animal Ethics in the Wild</i> Book about wild animal suffering and ethics by Catia Faria (2022)

Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature is a 2022 book by the philosopher Catia Faria published by Cambridge University Press. It examines wild animal suffering as a moral problem. Faria contends that if we have a moral obligation to aid those in need, we should intervene in nature to prevent or alleviate the suffering of wild animals, as long as it is practical and leads to a net positive outcome.

References

  1. 1 2 Faria, Catia (May 2015). "Making a Difference on Behalf of Animals Living in the Wild: Interview with Jeff McMahan". Relations. 3 (1): 81–84. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-001-fari .
  2. 1 2 3 Fisher, Max (2010-09-20). "Should We Kill Off the Carnivores?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-04-08.
  3. 1 2 3 Erler, Alexandre (2010-09-27). "Should we rid the world of carnivores if we could?". Practical Ethics. Retrieved 2021-04-08.
  4. ↑ Ebert, Rainer; Machan, Tibor R. (May 2012). "Innocent Threats and the Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals: The Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals" (PDF). Journal of Applied Philosophy. 29 (2): 146–159. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00561.x.
  5. ↑ Switek, Brian (2010-10-04). "The Dingo - Australia's Wildlife Watchdog". Wired. ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved 2021-04-08.
  6. ↑ Smith, Wesley J. (2010-09-21). "Driven Nuts by "Suffering:" Professor Urges Animal Eugenics Aimed at Eradicating Predators". First Things. Retrieved 2021-04-08.
  7. ↑ McMahan, Jeff (2010-09-28). "Predators: A Response". The New York Times. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
  8. ↑ McMahan, Jeff (2015). "The Moral Problem of Predation" (PDF). In Chignell, Andrew; Cuneo, Terence; Halteman, Matthew C. (eds.). Philosophy Comes to Dinner (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203154410. ISBN   978-1-136-57807-6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-04-13.
  9. ↑ Catapano, Peter; Critchley, Simon, eds. (2016). The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments (1st ed.). New York: Liveright. ISBN   978-1-63149-071-2. OCLC   902661498.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.