Question Omnivores are often defined as opportunistic feeders, in other words; they eat what they can get their hands on. As vegetarian sources of food are generally plentiful in the developed world; are there any valid reasons for eating meat? I’m finding it extremely difficult to think of any rational reasons for eating meat in my own life since I’m entirely able to survive on vegetarian options whilst still getting the nutrients I require. The strongest ‘weak’ argument I’ve came up with is it is ‘natural’ for us to eat meat – our bodies are able, and ready, to digest it. Like I said; this argument doesn’t win me over; there are many ‘natural’ things in this world that aren’t necessary for one to live a good life (and many more to contradict living one). For example; cancer is entirely natural – it is observed in the natural world. Likewise; the process of rape as a means of propagating has been observed in the animal kingdom (i.e. in chimpanzees and even dolphins), but I would never use the ‘natural’ argument for defending rape or denying a cancer sufferer treatment. My poor argument relies on ‘natural’ being defined as: “occurring in, or being produced by nature”. Returning to my original question: what rational arguments, if they exist at all, can be used to validate my carnivorous side?

Accepted:
August 13, 2008

Comments

Suppose someone asks: "What rational arguments can be used to validate drinking wine?"

You can survive without wine whilst still getting the nutrients you require (well, so they tell me). But so what? Wine is a great pleasure to the palate, it makes you feel deliciously intoxicated, it is a delight to share with family and friends. ("Wine is sure proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy", Benjamin Franklin.) What better reason for drinking the stuff?

Well, maybe you don't actually like good wine (shame on you!). But assuming you do, what more "validation" do you need?

Likewise, let's sit down to (say) a wonderful plate of salami, prosciutto, coppa and lardo from cinta Senese, followed by perhaps ravioli stuffed with pigeon, then a tagliatta from Val di Chiana beef ... Well, food doesn't get much better than that: it is a pleasure to the palate, it makes you feel content and deliciously replete, it is a delight to share with family and friends. What better reason for eating the stuff?

Well, maybe you don't actually like (say) good Tuscan food. Maybe you actually prefer a totally vegetarian diet (Tuscans of course will think you are quite mad). But assuming you do like that sort of carnivorous feast from time to time, on high days and holidays, what more "validation" do you need for tucking in?

But perhaps you'll say I'm just crassly missing the underlying question. Of course, on the pro side of eating meat of various kinds, there are the wonderful pleasures of the table (just as on the pro side of drinking wine, there are the pleasures of imbibing): and there's a whole wider culture bound up with husbandry and hunting. But there is a not inconsiderable con side to meat eating. In particular, there are horrible aspects of factory farming. There are the ecological arguments against using scarce resources to produce some kinds of meat.

Fine. But bringing in those considerations rather changes the issue. The original question seemed to be wondering whether there was any reason at all to put on the pro-meat-eating side of the scales. But any decent chef can supply such a reason! The revised, and more serious, question is: how do we weigh the evident pro-reasons against the con-reasons. And that different question is much disputed. An overall low meat diet, with the meat decently sourced (and rather favouring animals like sheep or wild boar raised on marginal land) is what the balance of reasons inclines me to. Others of course differ.