In a recent op-ed featured on general interest news site Vox.com, writer Nathanael Johnson examined existing arguments against eating meat—and found no good reason for eating a carnivorous diet. Citing The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness, a groundbreaking work compiled by prominent scientists that states animals are sentient beings with feelings, Johnson searched for the “philosophical counterweight to Peter Singer,” the philosopher behind the idea of speciesism, but admitted that “ [his] enquiries didn’t turn up any sophisticated defense of meat.” In his search, Johnson met Paul Thompson, an ethicist who pointed out that a solid philosophy about animals should be applicable to humans as well. Johnson applied that to the idea of “humane” slaughter stating, “Using the same argument, we might raise children for the purpose of producing organs: As long as they were well cared for, ignorant of their fate, and painlessly slaughtered, you could say they had a life worth living.” While this application didn’t sit well with him, Johnson concluded that we should be focusing on providing farmed animals with a decent life. Despite the contradictory nature of Johnson’s feature, the fact that his search turned up no logical defense of eating animals strengthens the arguments against consuming them.
Subscribe now to the world’s #1