The Philosophy of Animal Slaughter

I first became interested in this subject during the recent incidence whereby a Hispanic man slaughtered a pig within the city limits and disturbed his neighbors in the process. The man was attempting to follow his family traditions and some of his neighbors thought the act was barbaric and cruel. I was not compelled to write this until the recent assault on the morality of those who eat meat by the PETA people and the new billboard proclaiming Christ as a vegan (or militant vegetarian). I think these two issues are intimately tied together and represent the essence of one of the most important conflicts of our civilization.

Animal slaughter must surely be one of the most significant issues in determining the maturity of any civilization, but not for the reasons that many of you might think. It seems there is a perception that we are civilized if we act like everyone else that is in our group. But that is where the problem begins, because not all groups act alike. Each group acts differently because each group has been taught differently and had different experiences. Thus, I will contend that a mature society is one where differences are celebrated, cherished, and preserved as vital to the survival of the species. In a diverse society, some will eat meat and some will not and that is good for the species.

This conflict centers around the fact that, in general, human nature makes people want to be around other people that are like them. We all have the desire to associate with those people who look like us, who share are interests, and who have the same values as ourselves. We each tend to stay around the people that are the most like us, or at least we perceive they are the most like us. We like for others to have the same values and the same habits and to react to situations the same way.

But all the lessons of life on this planet surely must teach us that diversity is the greatest strength of any species. The best hope for humanities survival lies not in all of us becoming the same thing, but in our continued efforts to be individuals working together and celebrating the things that make us different. The more niches a species occupies, the better are its chances of survival when part of its niches are destroyed. Thus we, as a civilization are caught in this giant cosmic tug of war. A part of us wants all others to be like we are. But the overriding concern of the survival of the species requires us to be diverse in our cultures and ideas. So the mark of a truly great civilization is not one that ignores issues of diversity, but rather one that strives to understand those differences and then uses love to overcome the problems created by that diversity. As an example, if mankind where to occupy additional planets of this solar system, then he wouldn't be in so much danger from the strike of a large meteorite or a small virus. So society shouldn't be about the process of making us all alike, but rather should foster the differences we each have, and through love, learn to get along with those that are not like ourselves.

The recent article implying that people who don't eat meat are somehow more moral than those who do, and now a sign proclaiming Jesus was a vegetarian are perfect examples of people who want everyone to be just like them. So let us examine the ethics of the process of man caring for animals and then eating their bodies to nourish our own, a process that is Biblically supported. For Christians, the Bible clearly tells us that God gave the plants and animals of this planet to mankind to use as we please. We must only use them wisely to be God-like.

As a matter of ethics, the ultimate good for any species must involve the survival of the species. From the viewpoint of that species, those things that happen that tend to help the survival of the species must be considered good for that species and things that lead to the death of that species must be considered as bad for that species. The good of the lives of the individuals must always be measured in relationship to the good of the entire species. The death of an individual is not as bad as the death of the species.

So let's first examine the variations that are possible from the viewpoint of an animal species. There are three possibilities about the life of an animal. First the animal may not have any existence at all. Second, the animal may have an existence and live totally in nature, without the help of human beings. Third, an animal may live in nature, but be under the influence of human beings in its care and/or upbringing.

In the first case, many animals would not even have an existence, if not for mankind wanting to use their flesh and hides. For instance, if human beings stopped eating beef, then beef would slowly disappear from the planet and only those animals able to survive in nature without the help of man would be left. There would be no vast herds of cattle roaming the panhandle of Texas, if there were not first an economic reason to go to all the work to keep these animals alive. So the total number of animals of that species would drop dramatically and that would be bad for the species. So if PETA had its way, there would be far fewer animals on the planet to even have a chance to enjoy their existence. Thus, no existence would be worse than even a bad existence, if the species benefits from that "bad" existence.

So what about those animals that have existence, but are not influenced by mankind? Animals in nature are always eaten be other animals and most of them never make it to adulthood. Nature is a very violent place and animals die terrible deaths daily. Animals don't humanely shoot other animals, they just eat them alive. Try watching a lion catch and eat an animal if you want to see an animal eaten alive. If mankind wasn't involved in the life of cattle, then those cattle now raised by humans would either not exist or they would be faced with the terrors of nature. Cattle in nature face many obstacles and they have few chances for a long and happy life. Thus, animals in nature spend much of their time in terror, always trying to eat without being eaten.

Being protected by humans is clearly, from the viewpoint of cattle, the best scenario to keep cattle on the planet. As long as mankind survives and uses their bodies, the survival of the bovine species is assured and thus the most good comes to them from their involvement and dependence on man. As long as man likes to eat beef, cattle will always have a secure future and the same can not be said for their survival alone in nature. Many cattle that I have "known" have had superior existences because the people who took care of them loved them so much. This clearly could never happen "in nature." So from the viewpoint of the cow, man's interference in its life is good for that animal species.

Next let's examine the question from the viewpoint of mankind. It is obvious to anyone who has studied history that many civilizations have come or gone around the ability of the population to get proper nourishment and that has usually meant meat. It is only in the last few years of mankind's existence, that we could even have this argument about eating only plants, because no other civilization has even had the choice. Since meat represents a very concentrated and complete food source, it has shown itself superior to plants in its ability to sustain mankind's populations in times of need. There is much evidence in the evolutionary record to show that mankind may not even have evolved as a species, without hunting and the associated eating of meat. The drive to expand our horizons comes directly from that early desire to find, hunt, kill, and eat meat. I think this drive is necessary to the survival of our species and that would mean it is good for the species. Also, diversity is very important to the human species. If every person decided not to eat meat, then the diversity of the human species would be less and that would be bad for our species. Thus, from the viewpoint of the human species, it is good for some to eat meat.

Next let us examine the question from the viewpoint of our planet. Diversity has shown to be important for the planet as well. Many meteorite impacts in the past have destroyed countless species of animals and plants. For the first time in the history of our planet, mankind now has the ability to stop some of these events from happening. Surely that would be good for the planet. I suspect that most of the true adventurers in our society like to eat meat and those people that stop the meteorites from hitting the Earth will probably have some meat eaters among them.

I believe that eating animals is the most ethical thing that can happen to them. What are the choices? They either have no existence or other animals (or plants in some cases) eat them. Surely eating an animal so that it can nourish a human body so that person can serve humanity is the highest purpose an animal's life could serve. So am not against the people of PETA. I strive with my entire being to be ethical to animals and so support their efforts. If they want to eat their food while it is still alive, then I think they should be allowed to eat what they want. J I merely differ with them on what constitutes ethics and I proclaim my right to live my life in the most ethical manner that I can envision. If PETA had its way and everyone stopped eating meat, it would clearly be unethical, because it would mean we had less diversity, which would be bad for animals, bad for humanity, and bad for the planet. I would respectfully suggest that the people of PETA change their name to "Ethically Eating Animals To Uphold Morality," or EATUM for short. For the most part, the animals of this planet that we eat or use in some way are enhanced by their relationships to mankind and mankind is enhanced by its relationship to animals.

A final argument revolves around the need for humans to treat other humans ethically. Until we treat all humans ethically, I would prefer that we put most of humanities efforts into that project, rather than trying to save animals from the few humans that mistreat them. Why don't we have PETP, or People for the Ethical Treatment of People?

In fairness, I am not saying that all eating of animals is good. Obviously, if we eat an animal species into extinction, then we have broken all of the rules above. This act would cause less diversity and would be bad for the animal species, bad for mankind, and bad for our planet. The eating of animals must be a part of a greater understanding of the role of each species as it relates to its environment, our lives, and the health of the planet in general.

As we return to the case of the hog slaughter within the city limits, let us put this situation into perspective. I think the Hispanic man had every right to practice his culture and eat meat, as he thinks important. There is nothing wrong with his actions. However, I also think the neighbor had every right not to hear and see the event. This situation represents the essence of the problem I outlined earlier. How do we encourage diversity within our society and still live in a peaceful manner with those who have different views? The only answer is love. This incidence marks the interception of two different cultures that have been forced to live next to each other. But what we all must understand, is that these differences are important to the survival of our species. We need to cherish these differences and learn through love to bridge the gaps that separate us all.

As long as one person on this planet wants to eat meat, that person should have the choice. As long as individuals meet basic standards of conduct and respect the rights of others, we should encourage as much diversity within our society as we can. What foods we put into our bodies should always remain the choice of the individual, not society.