Outline The Argument Against Moral Veganism

In this essay I will argue that it is morally permissible to eat meat on the grounds that all humans possess something which animals do not, a root capacity for rationality. Before I criticise what is wrong with the argument presented by moral veganism, I want to briefly outline the appropriate argument. Sentience is defined as the ability to feel both suffering and joy (Jaworska, 2013§ 4.3). Singer claims that animals should be given “equal consideration” on the basis that animals have sentience, thus they have interests (Singer, 1989). Since animals can experience suffering, they have an interest in not being tortured, since they will experience pain if they are (Singer, 1989). Upon the grounds that sentient beings can experience suffering, we should attempt to reduce or eliminate this suffering where possible. Both the intensive farming and killing of animals involves suffering, therefore, we should not

This issue is exemplified by the statement that “There is nothing at all odd, in the vegetarian eating the cow that has been obligingly struck by lightning” (Diamond, 2005). I agree with Diamond’s criticism because, despite moral veganism objecting to eating meat that has been purposefully slaughtered on moral grounds, it provides no objection to eating the meat of animals that have died of natural or unfortunate causes (Diamond, 2005). This seems problematic, since many vegans would object to eating meat altogether (by whichever process the animals death occurred). This inconsistency suggests the argument is unsound for moral veganism, since it does not defend the consumption of meat from an animal which has had a natural death. Singer’s argument merely defends that the killing of animals for food is morally wrong, not necessarily that eating animals is morally