Moral Vegetarianism: Responsibility Or Necessity

Recent trends in modern eating habits have brought upon a wave of new discussions and one of them being the never seemingly ending debate of vegetarianism. The trend rose to convert our standard diets and health recommendations that mankind has known and followed for centuries into cruelty-free substitutes of our favorite menu items. On one hand, we have vegetarians with their firm opinion on how eating meat is murder and that animals should not be used to fuel human greed. On the other hand, we have the opposing opinion of meat-eaters that argues that meat consumption is a way of life that has its own share of benefits. The main force behind the movement is fuelled by a series of claims and questions adjacent to modern meat production and slaughtering that questions morality. However, while the ethics surrounding meat consumption is questionable, moral vegetarianism should be a responsibility instead of a necessity for the following reasons. Meat consumption is an invalid measure for morality in the first place. It should be an option that one can turn to and eating meat is more than just killing animals. It also surrounds the livelihood that humans had adapted into and with revolutionary technologies and changing mindsets, society must learn the responsibilities that come with eating meat without the guilt that vegetarians impose.

Primarily, to refute the main claim of vegetarians of one such as Nobis (2002) who describes that meat-eaters are “selfish” as he or she accepts the system of killing animals for their own pleasure, a meat-eater does not necessarily accept the system of animal slaughter for their own needs. A meat-eater can have a sense of responsibility when it comes to where their food came from and they can also have an appreciation as well as a sense of gratitude for the life of an animal sacrificed for their own livelihood (Haile, 2013). Such arguments make meat consumption an invalid measure for one’s morality. In response to this, Nobis (2002) argues that an individual who thinks that it is wrong to eat meat yet continues to do is guilty of a lack of integrity. The intention of vegetarianism is undeniably morally good but it should not be used to measure one’s integrity as it is not a moral obligation in the first place. Therefore, according to Martin (1975), vegetarianism is a supererogatory act.

Nonetheless, to insist on the main competency that moral vegetarianism is a responsibility instead of a necessity, meat should always be a part of the choice that one can have when it comes to food consumption and not be guilted into the idea of meat is murder. The notion that comes with moral vegetarianism being a necessity in the first place was humanity has evolved to a point where eating meat is not a necessity to survive anymore. Although meat consumption has been scientifically proven to be a requirement for humans as evolution has demonstrated that humans are naturally omnivores, George and Paxton (1990) state that there are perfectly healthy adults who can thrive well on plant-based diets while meat has now been reduced to a source protein that helps balances out the body. However, it is still crucial nutrition for a majority of individuals such as children, the elderly, or people with diet restrictions. This also concerns vegetarians or vegans with complete control of the diets of those under their care. For example, one would force a plant-based diet on a child which would result in a risk of nutrition deficiency. As a result, affirming that vegetarianism is a choice when society became accommodating to such needs, hence meat consumption should be a choice as well instead of a necessity due to moral defense since having a choice means having a responsibility that comes along with it.

Furthermore, while it is an unquestionable fact that eating meat is literally taking a life, it also means that there’s more to it than just killing. A common vegetarian argument to this is that animals carry the ability to feel and have emotions, hence, slaughtering animals for meat consumption is the equivalent of murder. On the other hand, Hsiao (2015) refutes that sentience is not sufficient as a moral status since animals are not bound by moral obligations. For example, a lion that devours a deer would not have the ability to perceive its own morality or in another. In the midst of this debate, society must embrace, not reject the moral status of animals that we farm for food (Haile, 2013) as it is our responsibility to acknowledge the lives sacrificed for our livelihood and survival.

Lastly, to summarize moral vegetarianism as a responsibility, one must first accept the fact that humanity must “care for animal welfare and recognize that animals raised for meat are still living creatures that need to be cared for, valued and respected” (Haile, 2013). Meat consumers can start by making small changes to their lifestyles such as only supporting farmers that engage in humane slaughter under the practice of that virtue. Consumers can also start taking responsibility by researching where their meat comes from and that includes knowing the life that the animal had lived before it was slaughtered, how they were processed, stored, and shipped. (Haile, 2013) This way, one can consume meat without guilt imposed by vegetarians as they acknowledge the process behind meat production and takes on the responsibility as a moral consumer to support humane practices.

In conclusion, vegetarianism is not necessary to abide by morality as one’s morality should never be determined by their choice consumption as well as their choice should never be limited and that moral vegetarianism should be a responsibility that society should start holding on to improve modern meat production and the cruelty that surrounds it. It is agreeable that the meat industry needs to change in its production for the sake of ethically producing meat that might solve this age-old debate once and for all.