Question There is a strong enough moral argument for vegetarianism. However, it does seem that if applied globally, such a standard would cause a loss of livelihood (e.g for African nations that export tons of beef to Europe). In the dramatic event that a panel of EU ethicists decided to ban all non-vegetarian commodities (leather, meat, some forms of milk) on the grounds that these were borne from the undue suffering of animals, would the inevitable suffering of human beings that would result from such a move (through job losses, economic stagnation, etc. - assuming that in countries that thrive on the meat industry, e.g. Botswana, alternative livelihoods are virtually unsustainable, due to the poor agricultural space) provide a suitable argument for the continued non-vegetarianism of human beings on Earth, or is this a mere technicality?

Accepted:
November 11, 2007

Comments

These are really good questions and there are definitely many empirical issues that should be settled before we can adequately evaluate a proposal such as global vegetarianism, or a ban on animal products by the EU.

First, it is worth noting that not all vegetarians are utilitarians, or even consequentialists, and some may think that animals have rights that should be considered even at the expense of some degree of human suffering. How much human suffering is a hard question for such views.

Second, for the reasons you suggest, those who support global vegetarianism should probably not support the immediate end to all use of animal products. The goal would be, I think, to find alternative ways to feed and clothe ourselves in ways that are consistent with the well-being of animals. This won't happen over night. But we can take steps every day to reduce the pain, suffering, and death we cause to animals. (A nice statement of this "do your best" approach is in Sue Donaldson's Foods that Don't Bite Back, Ottawa: Evergreen Press, 2000, esp. p. 64-5, though I'm not sure it is still in print.) It is true that there are some regions of the world where currently the only way to support humans off the land is to graze animals and eat them. But this leaves many questions: could livestock be bred for such environments that could support a (humane) dairy industry? Are there kinds of crops that could, in fact, be grown there with enough ingenuity? Could the communities move from a meat economy to a different economy over time?

If the issue is global hunger, the longstanding argument has been that fertile parts of the world can easily produce enough vegetarian food to feed us all; the problem is one of distribution. So vegetarians need to work on distribution issues also.

Finally, there are many interesting arguments that suggest that the meat industry (as we know it) is environmentally problematic. It is possible to change the meat industry to be more ecologically sound so this isn't an argument against all meat eating. But it is relevant to the issue of global suffering. Likewise, many health problems would be reduced if we were all vegetarians. Meat-eating causes human suffering too; and this must be weighed in the balance.

I recommend looking at Diet for a New America by John Robbins (this is a bit dated now) and The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan (very recent, and an excellent read).