Hello,

I am writing because there seems to be a trend of Classicists taking on other cultures but, unfortunately, scholars of ancient Greek do not necessarily have access to other ancient languages (besides Latin). Obviously, Classicists would object if anyone wrote about Plato or other philosophers without being able to read ancient Greek. I hope you are applying the same standards to other cultural traditions, and that someone writing about Buddhism for your blog will actually be reading the relevant ancient texts in their original languages. 

Arti M, Ph.D.

Dear Anya,

I'm a follower from Argentina, and I am glad to enter into this debate.

Is eating meat moral? In terms of evolution, eating meat is what brought us, Homo Sapiens, to the 21st century and every technological, scientific and social development. Our brain evolved by increasing its size, at the expense of a lessening of our gut length (our second brain, neurologically speaking). When we changed our diet from fibers, which take longer to be digested and assimilated and with a lesser amount of protein and vitamins, to a much more direct source, it enhanced our brains. Cooking meat made proteins readily available. The rest is History. 

So, I find this dilemma is more about an excessive consumption of diverse meats, namely in rich, developed countries. Nobody needs to eat a 2lb T-bone. We are okay with 200g of nice beef, or poultry or fish, to meet our daily protein intake. But humankind has proved to be addicted to everything everywhere all at once, and we consume an excess of salt, sugar, proteins, fat and whatever food you can mention, regardless of health advice from every physician all over the world.  

Moreover, while humankind was scavenging in small groups, there was no time for wars: you just had enough battle to feed yourself and your tribe. Maybe one fight or two about a great carcass, but no more. War started with agriculture (Cain and Abel are the Biblical metaphor for shepherds against farmers. Farmers, e.g. Cain, won, I’m sorry to say). 

Agriculture started sedentariness and with it, culture and society as we know it today. But meat wasn't left aside: livestock was (is) a very important part of our culture as well as of our diet. 

Therefore, where's the balance? Do we become vegetarians or vegans and consume a lot of vitamin and mineral supplements which will never replace animal protein and in the end will weaken our health? Do we consider our protein intake and cut it down to sustainable figures, which would be desirable? To what populations should a decrease in meat consumption be addressed?  Would you ask a Massai oxherd to turn veggie? Or an Inuit to stop hunting seals and sea fish?  Could somebody forbid subsistence farm breeding? I don't think so. Besides, raising cattle doesn't have such an enormous carbon footprint as was thought, while cultivating requires more and more deforested areas on a daily basis. 

On the other hand, I agree that current research must focus on producing sustainable animal protein, be it by means of brand new genetic techniques which imply no animal suffering and better, larger availability to feed a growing population. Because we also need more cultivated areas to provide for this same population. 

Not eating animal meat on moral concerns is a personal decision I find flawless, as long as it's kept strictly personal. 

Pythagoras and several other philosophers, many of them from the Middle Ages, considered meat as a fuel for human aggression, lust, greed and eventually, war. I don't think meat consumption can be paired up to a capital sin. 

We must find balance. We need animal protein to go on evolving, at least the same kind of evolution that has brought us so far. Maybe the change we can make is the way we grow and obtain animal protein. Science can give the answers. 

Mónica E. S.

I think it all boils down to the understanding that every living creature eats living things. While those living things may be plants, they are still living things. Humans are the only creatures that cook things.

Larry K.

Roman legionnaires and gladiators were essentially vegetarians, though not particularly moral.

Roger

Hello, Anya..

Loved your article but I would have to argue that having been strict vegetarian since age 13, (I am 65 now and everyone around here calls me the kid, including those in their 50's, as I look not my age and have the flexibility and movement of one much younger), and, as might be expected, having met and known many vegetarians over the years, (like you in my day, vegetarian was not a common word in use), I have to disagree with the presumption that your height had anything to do with the diet itself, than it did perhaps with not having adequate nutritional knowledge in your youth to properly balance your meals, or quite possibly recessive genetics in the family...somewhere.

I have known vegetarians of every height, and bodybuilders as well. In my case I became vegetarian after a trauma that took my eyesight, and by another inexplicable event it was returned to me along with an unexpected development of seeing life in an entirely new perspective light. My mother took me to a psychiatrist in fear that I would die by my refusal to consume anything that, if it were alive, would run away or struggle. I was fortunate that the doctor she insisted on, as it turned out, was well traveled in the east and quite knowledgeable in regards to the lifestyle choice. He was able to allay all her fears. 

It was when I went to see a flight medicine doctor on the Elmendorf Air Force Base in my mid 50's that I learned a harsh truth. I was sent there because I was planning to do some cave diving in Florida and he was the only one qualified in barometric medicine and qualified to give me clearance. He literally made the comment to me after my exam, stating, "I have to say. I mean, wow, you're in incredible shape for your age...what exactly do you do, if you don't mind my asking?" 

Well, after asking him to please "do write that comment you just made on my report", we engaged in a 45 minute discussion regarding health and diet, and it was here that I was stunned to learn that medical professionals DO NOT receive more than a smidge of education, literally, of dietary connections to health in medical school!! As he explained, it is the medical journals behind this as they are funded primarily by Big Pharma, and have a lot of say as to what not only goes into the journals, but by proxy, also what is taught in medical schools in the U.S. 

This was quite a revelation coming from him in that Hippocrates, upon whom the Hippocratic oath is based, was the one who stated, "Let medicine be thy food, and food be thy medicine." and that the medical symbol, the Caduceus, is also a reflective stance on the principles advocated by Hippocrates, if its symbolic meaning were better understood  

It would take much more to explain the full spectrum of why YES, a vegetarian diet is the ideal for humankind, but each Soul must come to any given evolutionary point of their own volition. I would offer that you were blessed to have it in your consciousness to not be comfortable with consuming meat early on, and most certainly even a meat diet unbalanced can and may lead to development issues. 

Alex in Alaska

Did you ever wonder why God gave you those canine teeth?  Certainty not for looks!  Just saying….

Fred Flinstone 

Hi!

I am a hunter and fisher who primarily eats only the creatures that we, me or my family, kill ourselves. As such, I have strong views on meat eating, while making it clear that I think the only reason to kill anything deliberately is for sustenance or defense - trophy hunting is the epitome of immoral. 

I would also note that I think it is even more immoral to judge others for their decisions to eat meat or not. 

Eating a certain way, regardless of the way, indicates a choice in the matter and there is not always a choice.  Being vegetarian, and vegan, in particular, is a privilege - financially and in time spent, particularly if you want to remain healthy. 

The morality and ethics lie in how we treat the creatures whose meat we consume, and there is a disgusting lack of gratefulness for the life lost to sustain a human. I was vegetarian for many years, and I thought long and hard about my decision to not only start eating meat again, but to slaughter that meat myself, to hunt that creature, to take the risk of a bad shot and the suffering that would inflict. But, I made the best choice for me and my family and I do not feel immoral in any way. I can guarantee you that the creatures I hunt and fish outwit me 99 times to 1.

I do not think eating meat is inherently immoral. The immorality comes from the cruelty and ingratitude and gluttony humans express in their meat eating.

Thanks!

Cara G. 

Anya,

I’ve always found it humorous when morality is used as a reason for vegetarianism or veganism. Are plants not living things, too? Are we so arrogant as to assume that they hold a lower tier of value than animals when it comes to life? We certainly do treat plants that way. Can you imagine setting a deer carcass on a stand in the middle of your living room, decorating it with lights, and putting presents under it, hoping it doesn't dry out too soon, all the while laughingly remarking to friends how the blood(sap) makes your hands so sticky? That would be ridiculous! But if it’s a Douglas Fir, instead of a deer? Then Whack!, chop it down, tie it to the roof of the car, haul it home, and festoon its slowly dying body with glittery glass balls as religious music plays in the background. Yep, that there’s how you do morality!

I would posit that maybe plants are actually a higher form of life than us and that we should ONLY eat meat. Evolutionarily speaking, our bodies are better equipped to handle a carnivore diet over an herbivore diet, anyway (no B12 supplements needed). This biological predilection should account for something. And, if we are going to endow animals with special privileges because they are so much like us, shouldn’t they also be subject to the same morality we have to follow? Of course, that would mean ridding the world of all predators since that is what predators do, eat meat. Don’t worry, I’m sure the food-chain would be just fine. As long as we all feel better about ourselves. That’s what really matters.

Matt

To my vegetarian friends: do you consider sheep and gazelles moral animals because they are vegetarians, and consider wolves and lions to be immoral animals because they eat sheep and gazelles?

Ed A. 

Dear Anya,

I read the recent email regarding the question about eating meat and it being moral and I wanted to share what I know to be the facts of the matter.

The unfortunate thing about the public is the fact that it's based on secular and profane thinking. The majority of people haven’t done any research regarding game theory (business strategy) and they are pawns in the game of life due to the lack of providence and prudent decisions.

Decisions that are based on probabilities aren’t certain to be true and justified, which is the current situation with topics like climate change and sustainability; they are just simply marketing terms that people buy into without any further consideration.

These decisions lack observation and material facts. We have to discuss the nature of the human body and what is essential for human prosperity and growth. We shouldn’t have artificial persons that are fiction making decisions that are assumptions lacking facts. It would be criminal as well as torts. Even when discussing these topics, everything is based on three types of law. Contract law requires a meeting of the minds as well as mental capacity. Property law has three types which are real, tangible, and intangible. Torts involve different types such as assault/battery and misrepresentation.

I think for us to discuss if eating meat is moral, we would need more specific facts to come to a conclusion. There are many vegans who have Youtube channels and some have come off the diet due to the health issues that they had where they weren’t even healing properly. So many look like they are slowly dying and their mental health isn’t that good. So the question would have to be asked, is it moral to harm ourselves without a proper diet? Should it be assumed that a diet is good for everyone and make a claim of it being moral without it being accurate and truthful? We have been put into a game of adversarial thinking without any desire for intelligence and removing assumptions about our decisions.

A lack of knowledge certainly doesn’t lead to an ethical and moral civilization especially with secular thinking.

Sincerely,

Aaron K.

To eat the beasts, both domestic and wild, tis necessary, it seems, to first kill them. Therefore there be at least two quandaries. First, is it moral/ethical to kill a living animal? Secondly, ought we be eating said animal?

If we are to eat the benefits of our killing, what nutrients do they provide that are not available from other sources?

What's left is vegetation, which like animals, is living. Not only that, when you harm many varieties of plant life, others of that species let out an alarm (a measurable form of energy) which has been scientifically verified.

Now, that may leave us in confusion. The only thing left is rocks and dirt, which have few if any nutrients and are usually unpalatable.

Parlaying into mother nature (creation) it appears that she endorsed the idea of some animals eating other animals. Some animals eating plants and a few plants eating animals (Think,”Little House of Horrors”). Then there be some animals that eat about anything. Here, we humans are possibly in the top tier. We can and do enjoy a full satiation.

I believe this to be because some foods and combinations of edibles can be both nutritious and tasty. Our teeth were dedicated to eating veggies and we forged ahead acquiring the desire for the meat of many different animals.

I have just finished a luncheon of steak and lobster, along with a mixed fruit salad, brussel sprouts and baked potato.

Nope, no desert, not good for me. My thoughtful vote is for a balanced diet of what edible gifts the gods have given.

Michael B. 

Thanks Anya, I always enjoy your writing. As a carnivore I have to say that I agree with your email…. I recall a friend telling me once that in India, when the Brits invaded, the gurus started pushing a meaty diet to fight off the flesh eaters. 

In some rosicrucian traditions, it is taught that when, according to Appollodorus or Diogenes Laertius, Pythagoras sacrificed a hecatomb of oxen on discovery of his eponymous theorem (so to speak), he didn’t kill animals, but made little offerings out of incense or some fruit or some such, little oxen, and then burned or ate them.... 

To me there is no doubt that eating meat shortens lives, and not just the animals killed in preparation of the meal, or those subjected to the vigorousness the diet promotes. I think it kills us, too: the meat eater. I’ve seen evidence that cancer disappears in vegetarian communities (presuming organically prepared produce, of course). And that doesn’t even go to heart disease.... 

Why are we eating hatred and terror?

I did live on banana pancakes for several months, once. Certainly, my vibration (if you will) changed. I was kinder in some respects, more delicate, patient. Disciplined. I began to see auras. That big greasy burger no longer looked appetizing - it looked foul. It smelled rank, like a feed lot. 

Alas, how far we fall…. I’m a hypocrite. Now I love a good chunky burger. Bacon. Dripping in grease. Ugh. And, worst of all, I’m a coward: if I had to kill the cow and slaughter the pig, there’s no way I could do it. I would be a vegetarian. 

Somehow, removed as we are from the source of our food - it’s not cow or pig, but beef or pork - we transmute it - it’s food, not a corpse - package it all up in the commercial lie, so we just stuff our stomachs and take another bite. 

Then back to the war.

Ben

Hi there,

The "is meat moral" argument is one that comes up all the time.

We have to consider the alternatives. If large animals were on the earth that had no use to us, they would be competitors and possibly hunted to extinction to reduce competition. Animals that we eat are bred because we need them for our use. With no need, they would not exist or would not exist in the numbers they do now. So what's more moral, having animals on the earth that we can eat, or not having them at all?

JS

There are plenty of reasons to not eat meat: cruel or environmentally unsustainable practices, for instance. Perhaps these reasons involve morality. I would just consider them practical. However, if killing animals is the hold up, I challenge the world view. One need not be particularly observant to see that in the entire planet-full of living things, all must eat. Plants, for the most part, have been clever enough to harvest light for a living, and the rest of us rely, ultimately, on plants for food. Having lived as a gardener and keeper of livestock, I must acknowledge that both plants and animals live and value their lives as much as humans do, therefore, what sort of killing I must do in order to sustain my own life does not involve whether it bleeds or not.To fail to see that eating plants involves killing is just being blind to the lives of plants. Better, I think, to be mindful of the lives of your food, grateful for the sacrifice, and humble in your view of your own place in the scheme of things.

Glenna G.