Objection: Is killing an animal for food really the same as killing them through other indirect measures
This text is based on: Why eating animals cannot be wrong
My argument is based on the assumption that killing an animal for food is really the same as indirectly killing animals through any other aspect of our lives.
My claim is, that we have the right to do harm to animals in order to live a life worth living even though these actions are not strictly necessary for survival. And since each action for our pleasure already induces harm to animals in some way, eating meat simply becomes such an action beneath others.
This argument, however, would fall apart, if it turned out that killing animals for food is actually not the same as killing animals through other indirect measures like building roads or extracting oil.
If killing animals for food is indeed something different in the sense that killing an animal for food is in some way worse than killing that animal through an indirect measure, then all those indirect measures would still be justified through our right to live a life worth living. But eating animals would have to be justified through another argument.
First, I think the intuition that this objection is based on is that the intent of eating meat also contains the intent of killing that animal. And intentionally killing an animal even though it is clear that this animal has a right to live, makes it a malicious intent.
On the other hand, building a road does not explicitly intend to do any harm. And thus, building a road does not have this malicious undertone.
I think this objection can be replied to in two ways:
- The fact that an animal has to die in order to eat its meat is in the same sense an indirect consequence as an animal dying through other indirect measures.
- Killing an animal for food is indeed the same as killing one through other indirect measures
Animals dying for food is in itself already an indirect consequence
This might sound silly as it is very clear that killing an animal in order to eat it is an unavoidably necessary action.
Yet, many people that do eat meat also claim that they could never kill an animal. Which in turn indicates that killing an animal was never the actual intent to begin with.
When eating meat, the intent is eating meat and only eating meat. That an animal had to die is just an unavoidable prerequisite.
(Whether something is a consequence or a prerequisite does not matter. E.g. driving on a road has the prerequisite that it was built, so the moment I drive on the road, the harm to animals was already done. And thus the harm to animals through building a road is a prerequisite for my personal pleasure of driving on it rather than a consequence.)
The discussion around the claim that someone who eats meat should at least also be able to kill an animal indicates that the intent of eating meat cannot be separated from the unavoidable prerequisite of killing an animal for it. Even though the actual intent is, in fact, just eating - not killing.
When we accept, that killing an animal for food is just a prerequisite rather than the actual intent, then eating meat is in the same sense not malicious as harming animals by driving on a road.
Killing an animal for food is indeed the same as killing one through other indirect measures
Imagine coming home late at night. Your partner is already in bed sleeping. You go to the bathroom to clean yourself and then head to bed yourself.
The next morning your partner states that sometimes when you open the tap it can be loudly heard in the bedroom, disrupting her sleep. She's kindly asking you to open that tap more carefully in order to not make unnecessary noise. You respect her wish and claim to do it better next time.
The next occasion comes, and you find yourself in front of the tap while your partner is asleep. What do you do? You unmistakably know that by using the tap in the usual way it might disrupt your partners sleep.
And it is also unmistakably clear that even though you only want to use the tap, and not disrupt your partners sleep, it would be wrong to use it in the usual way. Even though the disruption of your partners sleep is a mere unwanted consequence, by knowing about it, the intent of wanting to use that tap in the usual way and the intent of wanting to disrupt your partners sleep actually become the same thing.
So far, so clear.
But does knowing that animals are harmed through the construction of roads make harming animals part of my intent when driving on it?
And still, the clear answer is yes. Even though I cannot control to what extent that harm is actually done and whether it actually happened when building this exact road. Just known that building roads MIGHT induce harm on animals is enough.
If it wasn't, then it would absolutely make no sense to ever try to reduce the harm that building roads actually does. Because, well, it was never part of the intent to begin with. So why bother.
The only difference between the harm done to animals by driving on a road and the harm done to animals by eating them is that not driving on a road has more severe consequences for my life than not eating meat.
And yet, even though driving on a road is for sure necessary to some extent, we do also drive a lot for our personal pleasure.
And since we have a right to do harm to animals in order to live a good life, I'm allowed to accept that driving on a road does harm, but I'm also allowed to accept that eating meat does aswell.