Why eating animals cannot be wrong
This title might sound a little controversial but hear me out.
There is no action in this world that does not have a consequence on the animal world around us ... Broadly speaking ...
Every road that is built, seals of a little bit more surface. Splits up more of the animal habitats. Makes it harder for animals to live in general.
And not just roads. Every house. Every village. Every city.
Every road lantern that is placed attracts more insects. Which makes them easy prey. And kills them by the billions.
Every window that is built, every cat that is adopted is a potential threat to birds.
Basically every human action has some consequence on the animal world. Some consequences are more severe, others are not.
And even though such consequences cannot be avoided altogether, our moral instinct tells us, that these consequences have to be at least minimized.
We could start this endeavor by stripping away any unnecessary actions.
Like eating meat...
... but also ... flying on vacation each year, buying the hippest clothes, buying the newest electronics, overconsumption in general.
But also, like, taking a warm shower? Humans didn't have warm showers for thousands of years.
When trying to determine, which actions really ARE necessary, it inevitably becomes clear that this is, by no means, clear.
Which standard of living should we even base our answer on? Should we refer to our modern way of living or an ancient one?
And even if we WOULD find such a standard, and even if we WOULD be able to answer, what a necessary action REALLY is, there still WILL BE necessary action which in turn WILL have harmful consequences on the animal world.
If our goal were to eliminate all harmful consequences on the animal world, our only option left would be suicide. But I think, that from a moral standpoint, we do not have to accept this conclusion as correct. Consequently, it cannot be morally required to eliminate all harmful consequences on the animal world in the first place.
In my opinion, the correct conclusion is, that we do in fact HAVE a moral right to do harm on the animal world in order to pursuit our own wellbeing.
So there's that.
But on the other hand, it obviously cannot be right to exploit the animal world without taking any care, either.
So on one side there is our right to do harm on the animal world in order to pursuit our own wellbeing. But on the other side there is this duty to do it to a reasonable extent.
And the real question becomes, what that "reasonable extent" is.
I will not be trying to answer that question here. Rather I'd like to argue that this "reasonable extent" does not necessarily include eating no meat or even no animal products altogether.
Intuitively, a "reasonable extent" would not include actions that are obviously unnecessary. But as I've already established, it is not quite clear, what "unnecessary" could even mean.
But nonetheless, we could say that an unnecessary action is an action that someone might as well not do and still be able to live their life.
But is an action that only contributes to a life worth living, and is not required for survival, also unnecessary?
Like driving on a road to visit my family.
Or going to an outdoor pool on a hot summer day.
Does acting morally sound regarding my harmful impact on the animal world imply that I need to restrain myself from all these little joys of life?
I would argue, that this is an equally unacceptable conclusion as committing suicide.
So I think, the conclusion we have to draw instead is, that our right to do harm to the animal world in order to pursuit our own wellbeing does not only include necessary harm in order to survive. But also includes necessary harm in order to live a good life.
But one still could argue, that there are some things which one could do that are neither necessary to survive nor are necessary to live a good life.
Like eating meat...
And, in fact, I would agree that eating meat in our industrialized world is indeed absolutely not necessary. And living a good life is absolutely possible without eating meat as well.
But concluding from this assessment that eating meat should generally be viewed as wrong does not do justice to all the other things that we do for our personal pleasure.
Obviously, eating meat kills an animal.
But so does taking a road trip. Just think about the controversial circumstances under which oil is extracted and refined. And all the roads that take away animal habitats.
And so does watching videos on YouTube. Think about all the infrastructure that had to be built and maintained. All the energy that has to be produced. All of this has an impact on the animal world.
Additionally, I would reject that it actually makes a difference whether the actual intent is killing the animal, like when eating meat, or that it is merely an unavoidable consequence, like taking a road trip. As long as I know, that an action leads to harm, it does not make a difference from a moral standpoint whether that harm is the actual intent or just an unavoidable consequence.
Again, if we would really conclude, that only actions that are necessary to survive are morally sound, our lives would no longer be worth living.
But if we accept actions as morally sound even if they "just" contribute to a life worth living, then eating meat simply becomes such an action beneath others.
Taking all this into account, it seems quite insincere that some people claim a moral high ground just for avoiding animal products in their food.
Avoiding animal products is obviously a good move to make when it comes to reducing the harm done to the animal world. But this move is, by no means, required. Why should be restraining oneself from the pleasure of eating meat be any better than restraining oneself in any other way.
The conclusion I draw from this, is, that acting morally sound regarding our impact on the animal world lies in trying to act responsibly. And not in acting in a certain way. For some people this might be to become vegan. For other people this might be to fight for dimmer or less street lanterns...