I recently posted a link to an article about raising animals for meat. The comments posted below the article are very much divided. Many people state that it is morally reprehensible to kill animals for food yet we know that animals are an important component of diversified, healthy agricultural systems. The questions of stress and suffering are valid when we are looking to give animals the most humane treatment possible, while there is a real disconnect for the public on both sides with what it means to kill to eat. How we reflect our own feelings about suffering and death is part of our moral compass. However, we are so far removed in our industrial and technological society that we may no longer see the benefit or necessity of this part of our nature. This is one of the questions raised by the farmer in the article. How do we justify killing as our moral compass shifts?
Nature, Morality, and Death
In the course of evolution strange things can happen, but it is unlikely that man will ever stop being an omnivore. Nature deplores inefficiency and utilizes the death and rebirth of countless organisms to support life. This cycle is likely to continue until the human race destroys itself or the sun burns out, despite our moral opposition. The best we can do is mitigate how we use our resources and stop exploiting what we have come to take for granted. Perhaps the greatest issue left out of this argument is how our change out of agrarian culture has led us to wasteful and disrespectful use of the animals (and arguably all foods) that feed us. We have lost touch with the understanding that what nourishes us is sacred and is created out of the continuing cycle of birth, life, and death. Suffering and death are part of the natural existence of all living things. It is going on around us constantly, out of our control. Our morality leads us to decide how much we allow in our own lives. We make our own choices based on our morals that we have no right to force on others. That said, it does not mean that we put aside our personal ethics.
Debate vs Mudslinging
This Intelligence Squared debate I happened to hear gave me some clarity on the argument. I don't take either side to be wrong. There are facts, conjecture, flawed studies, and real experience for both. What I took away was that each person has to do what works for them. In our rush to save the world and make it a better place we cannot fit everything neatly into the box of our choosing. We make the best decisions based on the knowledge we have about our bodies and ourselves, knowing that there are favorable and unfavorable consequences to the choices we make.
