Kimberly Webb

Environmental Ethics | Phil2300-501

December 8th, 2019

Final Paper

Your Steak has a Face: A Look into the Morality of Meat Consumption

I remember sitting at dinner with my family when I was young. My dad was eating a steak and

discussing what a deplorable person Michael Vick was for fighting dogs. I didn’t think anything was

wrong with it at the time; one was a dog and the other was, well, just a steak – I don’t think I had really

even connected that it was a cow.

This well represents the interesting paradox present in the Western worlds approach to meat

consumption. We fight vehemently for the rights of companion animals; we are even fighting to make

cruelty towards these companion animals a felony (Higgins, 2019). As we fight for the rights of some,

we forget the rights of many. We cannot ethically cherry pick which animals are due moral

consideration, and which are not. All animals are due the same moral consideration. There is no morally

justifiable reason for us to save the dog but eat the cow: there is no morally justifiable reason for us to

consume any animal, companion or not.

 When we discuss whether moral consideration is due or not due, we are discussing the moral

circle. The moral circle is a concept that separates those who are due moral consideration, those who are

inside the circle, and those who are not. The needs and interests of those inside the moral circle matter;

they are due moral consideration and it is immoral for us to violate their rights or fail to take their welfare

into consideration when making decisions. The moral circle has expanded, evolved, morphed and

developed from the time that we started conceptualizing this idea of moral consideration. No longer a

place only for white, land owning men, but encapsulating people of any creed, class, race or gender.

The concept that humans are inherently superior to other beings inhibited the expansion of the

moral circle to include any non-human organism for most of human history. Rene Descartes, and other

humanists, argue that we are by under no means morally obligated to extend any sort of moral

consideration to animals. Because they do not believe in expanding the moral circle to include animals,

you would be hard pressed to find a humanist advocating for moral vegetarianism.

Although the animal rights issue is a huge piece of the puzzle when it comes to the morality (or

lack thereof) of eating meat, it is not the only piece. There are other ethical factors at play that can

convince even the humanist that vegetarianism is the only moral dietary option. Livestock farming and

the meat consumption issue are not only an animal rights issue. The harm from the meat industry

expands beyond an animal welfare approach; it is a huge detriment to human beings themselves, taking

up resources that the global poor could greatly benefit from.

Almost a third of the planets clean drinking water is used to in livestock farming and to produce

animal products. All the while, around 500 million people struggle with water shortages (Nagappan,

2016). In the United States alone, livestock consumes 70% of grain produced and 36% of corn produced

(Pittman, 2016). We put a staggering percentage of our consumable food products towards livestock

while almost 13% of the planet is undernourished (FoodAid, n.d.). If the United States alone were to turn

towards an entirely plant based diet, we would be able to feed an additional 350 million people every year
(Webber, 2019). If the entire world were to turn away from the meat industry entirely, we would have

enough excess grain to feed an additional 3.5 billion people (Francis Vergunst, 2017).

With those numbers in mind, even philosophers like Descartes who only extend their moral

consideration to human beings cannot equitably justify animal consumption. Through consuming

animals, we are creating more harm to humanity as a whole. A global vegetarian diet would produce the

greatest good for the greatest number of people. Through the most basic utilitarian framework, regardless

of your opinions on animal rights or land rights, meat consumption is immoral as it is ultimately doing

more harm than good.

Descartes had said that animals were not due moral consideration because they lack

consciousness, or the ability to reason or will. In Animals Are Machines, Descartes supports that claim, in

part, with the argument that animals cannot communicate in a way that extends beyond their own natural

impulses (Descartes). Even though this sentiment was presented some 400 years ago, it is still an

argument presented by many who oppose the idea of moral vegetarianism.

Koko the Gorilla is just one animal that exemplifies a non-human beings’ ability to communicate

in the way that Descartes claimed they could not. During Koko’s life, she expanded her vocabulary in

American Sign Language to over 1,000 words, communicated thoughtfully and empathetically with

humans, and even tried to teach sign language to other gorillas (Weisberger, 2018). Her ability to do so

shows us that Descartes reasoning for excluding animals from the moral circle is invalid.

Peter Singer presented a new criterion for entry to the moral circle. Singer suggests that

sentience, the ability for a being to feel pleasure or pain, not consciousness, is the trait that dictates the

necessity to extend a being moral consideration. Singer draws from a utilitarian principle presented by

John Stuart Mill. In his greatest happiness principle, Mill states that our first obligation is to ‘maximize

happiness and minimize suffering (Mill, 1863).’ Singer writes that, “If a being suffers then there can be

no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration (Singer, 1974).” He takes
Mill’s greatest happiness principle and argues that this principle should not only be in reference to

humans, but in reference to any being that has the ability to feel pleasure or pain.

We have been shown that we are required to extend our moral circle not only to include people,

but animals as well. This brings us back to the initial paradox presented: we have extended our moral

circle to include certain animals but have closed the circle to others. Do cows, pigs, chickens or any other

animal left outside the moral circle not meet the criteria Singer has presented for moral consideration?

Just like the companion animals we care for; commodity animals too have shown the ability to feel

pleasure and pain. There is no morally justifiable way for us to simultaneously protect one and cast the

other aside. The moral implications of harming a cat and eating a cow are the same – either way, you

have violated one beings’ rights. There is no moral high ground for abstaining from one but partaking in

the other. You cannot view animals as sentient, recognize that they are subjects of a life who experience

pain and pleasure, while morally continuing to consume them.

The argument surrounding moral vegetarianism never tries to justify the morality of factory

farming and placing animals in abysmal living conditions – regardless of which side of the argument you

are on, people generally tend to agree that animals are beings whom are due moral consideration on some

level or another. A common solution to the ethical paradox of animal consumption is a shift in the way

that we raise, produce and consume animal byproducts. They argue that if we provide animals a good

quality of life prior to consumption, consuming them should not present any sort of ethical dilemma.

The issue with eating animals does not rest with the conditions that they are raised in: the moral

issues that correspond with the factory farming industry are of a completely different subset; although

there may be overlap between these implications and the implications of meat consumption, the

discussion must be a separate discussion. The issue with eating animals’ rests with the fact that,

regardless of the conditions they are raised in, we are still violating a moral beings rights.
 Consider Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of intrinsic vs. instrumental value (Kant, 1785). Kant

states that if we treat someone with instrumental value, or only use them for what they are worth to us,

then we are acting immorally. He stated that we must recognize other people for their own, intrinsic

value, and respect that they are valuable in and of themselves, not only for what they can do to us.

Tom Regan expands on this principle Kant’s principle of intrinsic and instrumental value and

argues that it is crucial for us to extend that same treatment towards animals and respect their intrinsic

value. Regan states that intrinsic value comes from being a ‘subject of a life.’ In other words, Regan

believes that intrinsic value comes from leading a life that is independent of its impact or utility to the

lives of others. In Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, Regan writes, “They too have a kind of distinctive

value in their own right, if we do; therefore, they too have a right not to be treated in ways that fail to

respect this value, if we do (Regan, 1980).” The argument is that if animals are a subject of a life, beings

with intrinsic value, as we have been shown many times that they are, that we must respect their intrinsic

value.

The argument stating that ‘ethical’ farming can enable us to ethically consume meat falls flat

once again when examined under this principle of intrinsic vs. instrumental value. Regardless of the

quality of life that we are providing animals when they are being raised for consumption, they are still just

that: being raised for consumption. As long as we continue to raise them with that goal in mind, we are

still only looking at them as a commodity, we are only acknowledging their instrumental value, or the

value that they can provide to us. Raising animals as a consumable product, regardless of their living

conditions, is taking advantage of their instrumental value and discarding their intrinsic value.

Imagine your good friend invites you over for dinner. You ask him what he’ll be serving, and he

tells you that he’s going to be cooking his roommate for the two of you. Shocked, you express your

moral qualms with eating a living being. Your friend tells you that they had only gotten a roommate to

provide them with a happy life, prior to killing him for food. He tells you that it’s okay, his roommate
lived a good and happy life, free to roam where he pleased, eat what he wanted and was treated kindly

while he was alive.

This scenario is absolutely ludicrous, but still uses the same line of reasoning that is used to

justify the morality of consuming animals that have been raised on farms. These animals are given good,

high quality lives, seem to be happy, can roam freely within the farm and are treated with kindness. Why

is it then, that we recoil with moral objections to our friend’s treatment of his roommate, but accept the

same line of logic when it comes to the treatment of animals? The difference is because the hypothetical

scenario violates a human’s moral rights, and reality violates the moral rights of an animal.

“It’s different because humans are different!” one may say. Yes, humans are different, but that

difference does not make these two situations different – the real sentiment behind the objection is that

humans are better. Why is it that we believe that humans are better, or more deserving of moral

consideration? Paul Taylor chalks this up to, what he calls, anthropocentrism, or the belief that humans

are superior beings. Taylor believes that we only perceive humans to be ‘better’ because we are ranking

our differences only from a human perspective. “If we as humans value more than tree climbing, that is

because our conception of civilized life makes the development of mathematical ability more desirable

than the ability to climb trees (Taylor, 1986). ” That being said, surely a monkey would place higher

value on the ability to climb trees than it would on mathematics. Taylor argues that we cannot base the

worth or value of a trait upon its application to a human society, but rather on its ability to allow that

species to live a good life. Essentially, the argument that humans are better turns into a logical fallacy.

We state that humans are better because we possess uniquely human traits. If asked why those traits are

better, we would state that it’s because humans have them.

One specific way in which we state that humans are better is the ability of free will, judgement,

reason, etc. We hold the belief that humans are better because we have the ability to reason critically and

know our obligations towards other, amongst other things. We use this fact of a moral high ground over
other beings who do not have these same abilities. Using this line of reasoning to protect humans over

other animals is flawed as well, as Taylor points out. What about mentally incapacitated people? People

in vegetative states? Infants and small children? Those people are not able to reason as other humans are,

so are they not to be morally protected as other humans are? Would the situation with your friend and his

roommate if the roommate was an incapacitated person? It would be different, but likely we would be

more outraged by the outcome.

Taylor has presented us with the concept of moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents have

the ability for accountability and critical reasoning (amongst other traits) that have been discussed above.

Moral patients, on the other hand, do not possess those traits, but still are moral beings with rights that

need to be protected. This does not only include humans who do not have the ability for critical thinking,

but also must be extended to animals. Taylor argues that we have a higher ethical obligation to protect

moral patients, because they cannot do so themselves.

While the animal rights case certainly is enough to prove that there is no ethical excuse to eat

meat, there are still other ethical factors that need to be discussed in order to fully understand the

magnitude of the immorality of this issue. The meat industry causes exponential harm to both humans

and animals, that we have seen. The havoc that it wreaks does not stop there. Livestock farming also

causes significant environmental deterioration.

Livestock farming been proven to be the leading human-produced greenhouse gas and contributor

to climate change. This industry alone is responsible for 18% of humanities greenhouse gases (Francis

Vergunst, 2017). Combine the total greenhouse gasses produced by every single human form of

transportation, and it still does not match the amount of greenhouse gasses that can be contributed to

livestock farming.

Essentially, the greenhouses gasses produced by factory farming are only contributing to the

death and destruction of the planet we live on. Just as many philosophers have argued that we must
expand our moral circle to include animals, Aldo Leopold has advocated for expansion once again, to

include the planet itself. In A Sand County Almanac, Leopold writes, “A thing is right when it tends to

preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise

(Leopold, 1949).” Leopold’s new standard for morality requires that we respect the biotic community

itself – the biotic community being a community not only made up of humans, but of animals and all

other parts of the world’s natural ecosystems. The farming industry directly opposes Leopold’s concept

of preserving and protecting this biotic community. Instead, it is a huge contributor the planet on which

we live.

The argument for the morality of animal consumption falls apart when closely examined with the

use of any single moral theory. A utilitarian and humanist cannot deny that the negative consequences

(even to humans alone) significantly outweigh the benefits of eating meat. An environmental ethicist

cannot deny that the farming industry is destroying our planet. Someone who has chosen to bring

companion animals into their moral circle yet continues to eat meat cannot deny that their behavior is

paradoxical and that commodity animals deserve the same type of respect and moral consideration as any

other sort of moral being. There is, simply put, no morally justifiable reason for human beings to

continue to eat meat. So, the next time you discuss animal rights or global issues over dinner, or even just

the next time you pick up your fork, just remember, your steak had a face.
Works Cited
Descartes, R. (n.d.). All Animals Are Machines.

FoodAid. (n.d.). Hunger Statistics. Retrieved from Food Aid Foundation:

http://www.foodaidfoundation.org/world-hunger-statistics.html

Francis Vergunst, J. S. (2017, April 26). Five Ways the Meat on your Plate is Killing the
Planet. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-
meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128

Higgins, C. (2019, January 28). A Proposed Bill Will Make Animal Cruelty a Federal
Felony. Retrieved from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/us/animal-cruelty-federal-
felony-bill-trnd/index.html

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Yale University.

Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn.

Nagappan, P. (2016, February 18). Demand for Meat is Driving Water Shortages
Affecting 4 Billion People. Retrieved from TakePart:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-face-water-scarcity

Pittman, A. (2016). How Planting Crops Used to Feed Livestock is Contributing to

Habitat Destruction. Retrieved from Our Green Planet:
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/livestock-feed-and-habitat-destruction/

Regan, T. (1980). Animal Rights, Human Wrongs. Envirionmental Ethics Volume 2, pp.
99-120.

Singer, P. (1974). All Animals are Equal. Philisophical Exchange, p. Article 6.

Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princton, NJ:
Princton University Press.

Webber, J. (2019, July 18). What Would Happen if Everyone Stopped Eating Meat?
Retrieved from Live Kindly: https://www.livekindly.co/everyone-stopped-eating-meat/