We have all heard this story before. "Would you really eat (insert animal here) if you could see the pain in its eyes when you ate it?" I can assume that most of us aren't heartless human beings and do love animals, but we have taken part in meat consumption in at least some point in our life. Whether you are a vegetarian, vegan, or meat-lover, you may have heard the argument from animal ethicists that the taste of animal products is a trivial matter when considering whether we should eat animals or not because of all the other ethical concerns that are in place.
One article that was found argues that our enjoyment of food should be a bigger issue than ethicists believe it to be and that there is a spectrum of decency and indecency to be considered when deciding when to consume animals (Kazez et al. 2017). This article refers to another article that tells a fictional story of man named Fred. Fred was a man who got in a severe car accident and damaged his "godiva" gland which secretes cocoamone which allows him to taste chocolate (Norcross et al. 2004). Fred discovered that he could obtain more of this cocoamone from puppies who will excrete it when under severe stress. Fred then continues to brutally torture the puppies to receive the cocoamone so that he is able to taste the chocolate (Norcross et al. 2004).
Now, any normal human being would take a step back and ask why he would do all this just to taste chocolate, but this is the animal ethicists argument for why we shouldn't torture animals just because we like the taste. Obviously this is the most unethical way that anyone could harm animals just to enjoy the taste of something, and this is on the most indecent end of the spectrum. The Kazez (2017) article argues that taste pleasure should be taken more into consideration when evaluating why we should or shouldn't eat animals but still believes we can consume animals in a more ethical way. In the United States, two thirds of adults are overweight or obese meaning that in most cases they eat their food for enjoyment and not just basic nutritional value or else they wouldn't overeat (Kazez et al. 2017). This means that people highly consider the taste of their food as being the reason why they eat it, and this shouldn't be a trivial matter that animal ethicists disregard.
With all that being said, the article does not want to discredit the other ethical reasons why people don't consume animal products. To refer back to the spectrum of decency that was mentioned previously, the article states that people could choose to eat meat from animals who were treated fairly in life and had an ethical death (Kazez et al. 2017). They could also choose to not eat meat at all because the ethical concerns are too great. This is to say that everything is based on personal preference but animal ethicists should not say that the taste of food should not matter to people. It is made clear that humans have a high need for physical pleasure and this should not be used against us when considering if we are ethical or not.
References
Kazez, J. (2017). The Taste Question in Animal Ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(4), 661-674. doi:10.1111/japp.12278
Norcross, A. (2004). PUPPIES, PIGS, AND PEOPLE: EATING MEAT AND MARGINAL CASES. Philosophical Perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment