Question There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating their produce? Why would morality come into eating meat? It is perfectly natural for human animals to eat other animals as well as vegetation, and some minerals. Finally, 100 years ago, in what was a less sensitive time, very few would have given a thought to eating meat and many people slaughtered their own stock. This is a common enough practice in many countries less fortunate than our own. Where was the morality then? Sometimes it is possible to perform an action and state that there is no moral question.

Accepted:

October 22, 2009