|Based upon freedom as a basic right for man and animal, it is man's moral obligation to respect the freedom of others.
Does (not) eating meat belong to this moral obligation?
The vegan, who wants to make use of animals as little
as possible, will certainly assent
There is a fair chance that the vegetarian too will agree,
although amongst them there are also people who don't
eat meat for health reasons and to whom an objection such
as the slaughter of animals is irrelevant.
Subjects in this article
The group of people who eat
meat, can be split into two parts: those who eat meat
from industrial farming and those who eat biologically
produced meat, from f.e. local butchers or otherwise.
That people who eat meat from industrial farming turn
aside from their duty, is something we want to make quite
clear on Animal Freedom: we think a moral
border is being crossed here.
The origin and the foundation of this moral border are
substantiated by our article on freedom as a basic right for animals.
Due to industrial farming premature exhaustion takes
place of the earth, the environment, human health and
Whether or not people who eat biologically produced
meat or comparable meat products cross a moral
border, depends on the way you look upon people's
right to yes or no be allowed
to kill animals. These meat consumers will defend
themselves by bringing forward that, before its death,
the animal was given the chance to live an animal-worthy
life. With that however, man has not yet obtained the
right to be allowed to kill animals.
- Not eating meat is increasingly becoming common
- Is it healthier to eat less meat?
- Is it better than to eat wildlife?
- Is eating fish better than eating meat?
|He or she who eats meat can
(apart from liking
its taste) only argue that meat is an easy and nourishing
food article. Possibly they may add that in free nature
certain animals too eat other animals. These animals don't
have other choices, man does and for that reason bears
responsibility for his choice of food.
When someone tackles them on eating meat produced in factory
farming, then the weak defense-argument that they themselves are free to determine whether
or not they eat meat, is not sufficient: after all they
crossed a moral border…
The death of the animal also
cannot be seen as a rescue from suffering. To slaughter
animals is being done for the sake of the pleasure man
takes in eating meat. It is not a great motive that deserves
admiration. In particular if you consider the right to
live to belong to the right to freedom, you cannot avoid
the conclusion that killing animals (for the pleasure
of eating tasty) means a violation of their basic rights.
People who think they cannot afford to be held responsible
for the killing of animals for food, better avoid this
dilemma by stopping their meat
consumption. Much can be said for a menu without meat:
weighing between conscience, health, taste and costs,
inevitably points towards favoring to skip meat from one's
Not eating meat is increasingly becoming common
Vegetarians obviously live só healthy that a British insurance
company offers them cheaper premiums.
In recent years everyone could become aware
of the scandals in the meat producing industry:
dioxin, hormones, swine fever and BSE. These scandals
point towards people's indifference where the fate of animals is concerned. How can
it be morally defended to eat meat from animals
that come from industrial farming? It can't be
defended, the meat consumer only shrugs his shoulders,
We consider it to be a matter
of civilization to organize your life in such
manner that you respect the liberty of all living
An animal deserves a better life than just, before
death arrives, the waiting-room that we call "industrial
Is it healthier to eat less meat?
What, after all, can be against
skipping meat from your menu more often? That vegetarian
food can be quite nice and tasty, is common knowledge
In order to stay in good health, an equal balance between
animal proteins and vegetable proteins is better than
the average nowadays balance, which means twice as many
animal proteins than vegetable ones.
Heavy consumption of hot dogs, sausages and
other processed meats could raise the risk of
pancreatic cancer, scientists heard yesterday
at the annual meeting of the US cancer association.
Is it better than to eat wildlife?
It is naive to think all wildlife
in restaurants comes from nature. Deer are kept by deer-breeders.
The website of the Dutch Society for the Animal Protection
states: "Many people put wildlife on their menu
for Christmas. However, in many cases the wild is far
from being as wild as the name suggests. Deer f.e.:
the number of animals being shot in Holland on an annual
basis, which averages some 450 of them, is by far not
enough to meet the demand for deer-meat. For that reason
they are being commercially bred and deer-meat is being
imported from Belgium, Great Britain and New Zealand.
Fair chance therefore that the "wild animal"
on your dish did not originate from wildlife. Then add
to this knowledge that deer are in no way suited to
be kept in captivity, and consequently ask yourself
once more if deer indeed has to be on your menu at all." So far the Society for the Animal Protection. In respect of wild swine, something similar applies:
many of them are kept on special farms in Poland.
Rabbits and pheasants are kept in cages, pheasants are
set free for a very short period and, totally defenseless,
cracked down under the mask of "pleasure hunt".
Hares come from Argentina and seem to be shot being
younger and younger, due to the increased demand.
Is eating fish better than eating meat?
One could still reason: fish live freely in the sea, so before being cought
they had a good life.
Well, the sea is becoming ever so empty, the North Sea
already contains only half of the quantities of fish
it used to do. Salmons, eel and trout are being bred
in large tanks, as if in factory farming, including
the application of antibiotics. Many of the fish cought
in the seas are being fed to these animals.
Because closer to where they live less and less fish
can be cought and trawlers got bigger and less dependent
on their home port, the fishermen tend to sail much
further to make their catch. Along Africa's coasts for
example, European fishermen, by using their enormous
trawl-nets, steal away the fish from African fishermen.
Apart from this kind of depriving people of their livelihood,
moreover the bottom of the sea as well as its ecology
becomes totally ruined that way.
For a review on abuses in the fishing industry,
Therefore fish too is not always a proper alternative
Click here to read more about considerations and weighs
regarding living with a clear