Search

The food we choose to eat tells a good deal about who we are and how we stand in relation to nonhuman animals and nature as a whole. Though most people are concerned about the state of the world and about their own health, they tend not to reflect very much, if at all, on what results from their dietary choices, and therefore see nothing wrong in eating meat I question this attitude. Specifically, I argue that, for the same reasons we should care about pain, suffering, well-being, and death in humans, so should we care about the fate of animals we traditionally designate as sources of meat Caring is supplemented in my argument by considerations of justice, and I contend that for reasons of caring and justice, we should be vegetarians, consistent with the aim of minimizing the harm we cause by our lifestyle choices. Finally, I examine what it means to take responsibility for our diets and challenge meat eaters to come to terms with the wrongdoing that is inherent in the livestock industry today.

In this article, the author attempts to supplement Joan Dunayer’s critique of vivisection by first stating and then exploring in some detail “the ideology of biomedical and behavioral science,” which consists of several mindsets that resist the development of noninvasive animal science and science that does not rely on animal research. Other issues examined are animal rights versus animal welfare, the bogus concept of “necessary suffering,” the tendency to deny or minimize animal pain and suffering, and the phenomenon of “compartmentalization” (or psychological distancing). A focused account of all these elements, the author argues, enables understanding of where vivisectionists are coming from and why they are so resistant to radical change in their methods.

The impulse toward violence and cruelty is endemic to the human species. But so, likewise, is the impulse toward compassionate behavior. Victor Nell acknowledges this, but he does not explore the matter any further. I supplement his account by discussing how compassion, specifically in the moral education of children, can help remedy the problem of violence and cruelty in society.

This essay begins at the intersection of two controversies that are of considerable importance to contemporary discussions about the relationship between our species and the restofnature. One concerns the question of whether a compelling case can be made for vegetarianism on moral grounds. The other has to do with the debate between proponents ofanimal rights and ethical holists over which kind of theory provides a more adequate foundation for a new environmental ethic. My remarks have their origin in some personal observations as well. Over the past decade and a half I have been a participant in numerous conferences, seminars and workshops on themes having to do with animal rights or animal liberation; I have also been involved in many centering on problems in environ­ mental ethics. These have all been positive experiences for me in one way or another, and have, I believe, expanded the horizons ofeveryone present. Yet I could not avoid noticing that when I am at an animal rights or animal liberation conference it is a foregone conclusion, an essential premise, that all food presented to delegates shall be vegetarian, even vegan. In contraSt, conferences occupied with topics in environmental ethics conunonly display no such commitment; and as a matter of fact, I fmd myself at these gatherings surrounded by persons discoursing earnestly on the subtleties of biocentrism, the land ethic, value· theory, deep ecology, Gaianism, and so forth who are simultaneously tucking lustily into steaks, chops, bacon, and even veal with no apparent qualms. At one recent conference on environmental ethics and sustainable development, of some fifty participants. only two others besides myself had requested vegetarian meals. At another, a workshop on environmental ethics and higher education, I was the only one of thirty participants not eating meat. In case it may be thought that too much weight is being placed here on one source of evidence, it should also be noted that of seventeen general anthologies of contemporary work in environmental ethics or environmental philosophy that have appeared since 1974, only one contains an essay specifically devoted to agricultural issues.1None contains an essay that treats the topic of meat as an environmental problem. The same omission is found in monographs in these fields. (Ecofeminists, however, do engage this issue2 and appear to be the only group of theorists for whom it is anything like a central concern. What this entails will be considered briefly in section 5.) What does it all mean? Before I attempt an answer let me say that I fmd