The Ethics of Eating Meat: Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism

Lobster, Social Custom, and the Arbitrariness of Food Ethics

In a satirical and scathing critique of the Maine Lobster Festival, David Foster Wallace draws attention to the fact that lobsters are "basically giant sea-insects," whose purpose in the ecosystem is as "garbagemen of the sea, eaters of dead stuff" (Wallace 2). Lobsters were once "low-class food, eaten only by the poor and institutionalized," considered "cruel and unusual" punishment food much as rats would be considered today (Wallace 3). Far from being the gourmet delicacy they are now, these "bugs" have come to connote ironically high-class foodstuff.

Wallace's article echoes one of the core arguments made by Roger Scruton in "The Conscientious Carnivore": food customs are largely arbitrary, based on ritual and social convention. Eating has long been a "social, often a religious, act, embellished by ritual and enjoyed as a primary celebration of membership" in a community (Scruton 82). Vegetarianism is likewise a social and religious act, "embellished by ritual and enjoyed as a primary celebration of membership." As such, vegetarianism has no absolute ethical boundaries and is as arbitrary as any social custom or religious code. Few vegetarians could survive in the tropics without killing mosquitoes, or in the polar zones without resorting to an animal-based diet. Therefore, the moral injunction against eating animals is an emotionally appealing and well-meaning argument, but one that cannot be realistically applied to the entirety of humanity.

Why Simple Moral Absolutes Fail the Meat Debate

The ethics of eating meat has emerged as one of the most relevant and important topics of debate in the early twenty-first century. As Wallace points out, "there is no honest way to avoid certain moral questions," particularly those related to the relationship between human beings and the animals they eat (6). Moreover, as Michael Pollan argues in The Omnivore's Dilemma, the morality of eating animals takes into account far more than the pain and suffering caused to an individual creature. The meat, fish, and dairy industries do measurable and significant damage to the environment. Insofar as human beings can agree on the fundamental right of people to freedom, liberty, and life, it would be impossible to argue that destroying the environment for short-term economic or hedonic gain is a sounder alternative to abstaining from animal flesh.

Based on a range of moral imperatives and from both deontological and utilitarian perspectives, it can nevertheless be argued that eating meat is not categorically wrong. There are too many gray areas in the vegetarian debate to categorically deny all human beings the right to kill animals some of the time and under certain circumstances. Determining what those circumstances are is likewise tremendously complex, but any ethical debate that presumes simple solutions is futile; human ethics and realities are too complex for simplistic moral absolutes. As one set of lecture notes observes, "there is no unifying moral rule or principle. Morality is complex and messy."

Works Cited

"The Ethics of Eating." [Lecture Notes]

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma.

Scruton, Roger. "The Conscientious Carnivore." Chapter 6 in Food for Thought. Amherst: Prometheus, 2004.

Wallace, David Foster. "Consider the Lobster." Gourmet. Aug. 2004.