Today, animal rights activists run rampant and are growing in number and influence by the year. Many organizations and philosophers advocate for the protection of the rights of animals in the sense that animals should not be eaten, tortured or experimented on, basing their arguments largely on the Golden Rule. Are we simply abiding by an adjusted form of the natural order and food chain? Or must we begrudgingly concede to the will of the dirty hippie? While a carnivorous lifestyle may seem unethical, it is an unavoidable part of life in modern society.
Regrettably, the argument that it is immoral to be carnivorous does agree with something deep inside the conscience of even the most thoroughbred meat-lover. Most advocates appeal to our distaste for the idea of causing another living being pain or suffering. Many would agree that there is no ethical difference between harming an animal and a human, and thus we have an ethical responsibility not to eat or cause pain to any animal. The essential question: Is it right to create a sentient life, capable of suffering, simply for the purpose of ending it so we can eat it?
The existence of human carnivorism and further unequal treatment of animals seems, at the very least, uncivilized and ignorant. Even objections made by certain scholars in favor of the practice, such as Holmes Rolston III, seem to contain some aspect of immorality. Rolston said, “Whether or not there are differences in pain thresholds between sheep and humans, the value destruction when a sheep is eaten is far less [than a human’s], especially since the sheep have been bred for this purpose and would not otherwise exist.” Again, no matter who you are or what you believe, there is something a little sadistic and carnal about the prospect of consuming the flesh of a once-living being whose sole purpose was just that (not to mention the atrocious treatment of “food animals” on large-scale factory farms). Furthermore, if every human in this era was forced to personally hunt, kill and cook animals in order to eat meat, it’s safe to say most of us would be vegetarians by now.
Although we feel squeamish and guilty when faced with the direct reality of existing carnivorously, does it really mean we are all ethically obligated to become strict vegans? And if so, must we also stop animal experimentation or using products like in-home insecticide and rat poison? If we do eventually determine that eating meat is morally wrong and that all animals deserve not to be eaten, must we take it upon ourselves to eradicate carnivorous behavior across all species? Should we feed the lions at the zoo tofu? The obvious answer to most of these questions, including whether or not we should all succumb to the will of entities like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is no.
The act of killing another living thing in order to eat is natural and inevitable. It’s ingrained in the human tradition, when humans were hunter-gatherers and relied almost exclusively on protein to survive. However, animal rights activists also have a point. While eating meat is not wrong, torturing, mistreating and experimenting on other living beings, simply for our own comfort and efficiency is arguably unethical. But the sad truth is these beings will never be able to advocate for their own equality. Thus we will most likely never see complete achievement of animal rights. So in the end, don’t hesitate to buy the bacon made from the pig whose life was nothing but despair — but maybe take a moment of silence to recognize and mourn the irreconcilable malice of human insensitivity before you wholeheartedly enjoy that hunk of once-living flesh.