Is it right to eat animals?

Even if it is allowed, it is better not to do it

If freedom is a fundamental right for humans and animals, then people have a moral duty to respect the freedom of others. Does eating meat also fall under that duty? Vegans, who want to use animals as little as possible, will certainly agree. Many vegetarians too, although some of them avoid meat mainly for their health.

Meat from factory farming: a moral boundary

Meat eaters can be divided into two groups: those who eat meat from factory farms and those who eat organic meat. Whoever eats meat from factory farming neglects their duty. In doing so, a moral boundary is crossed. Where that boundary comes from, you can read in the article on freedom as a fundamental right for animals. Factory farming also exhausts the earth, the environment, human health and animal welfare.

And organic meat?

Whether people who eat organic meat also cross a moral boundary depends on how you view the right of humans to kill animals. Meat eaters will argue that the animal had a good life before it died. But that does not give people the right to kill it.

Weak arguments

Apart from finding meat tasty, meat eaters can only argue that meat is convenient and nutritious. They may point out that in nature animals eat other animals too. But animals have no choice. Humans do. That is why they are responsible for what they eat.

Another common argument is: "I am free to decide for myself whether I eat meat". But freedom ends where you harm others. Having animals slaughtered for the pleasure of a tasty meal is not a motive that deserves admiration. Whoever includes the right to life in the right to freedom cannot escape the conclusion that killing for taste violates the fundamental rights of animals.

Solving the dilemma

Whoever does not want to be responsible for killing animals can best avoid this dilemma by no longer eating meat. There is a lot to be said for a meat-free menu: conscience, health, taste and cost all point in the same direction. Eating without meat is also becoming more and more normal. We consider it a matter of civilisation to arrange your life so that you respect the freedom of all living beings. What if you took your own principles seriously?

Side track: less meat is healthier

In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified processed meat, such as sausages and ham, as carcinogenic: it can cause bowel cancer. Red meat is probably carcinogenic too. Health authorities in many countries therefore advise eating less meat, especially less red and processed meat. Instead, they recommend more pulses and nuts. Read more about the consequences of eating meat for health, environment and climate.

Side track: is eating game better?

Game sounds natural, but much of the venison and game sold in shops and restaurants comes from farms, sometimes on the other side of the world. Deer are not suited to being kept in captivity. Pheasants are often reared in cages and released shortly before a hunt, only to be shot defencelessly.

Side track: is eating fish better?

Fish live freely, but the seas are being emptied. According to the FAO, more than a third of the world's fish stocks are overfished. Today more than half of all fish and seafood comes from aquaculture: a form of factory farming in which wild fish are often used as feed. Large trawlers fish off the coast of Africa, taking fish away from local fishermen and destroying the seabed. Read more in Is fish a good alternative to meat?

Side track: what do philosophers say?

According to philosopher Peter Singer, humans are guilty of speciesism: we favour our own species, even when the interest of an animal is greater. Dutch philosopher Michiel Korthals points to the other side of the hamburger: the herds kept for fast food push back biodiversity, while fast food is addictive because it does not really fill you up.

Sources: IARC/WHO, red meat and processed meat (2015); FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024. Updated October 2026.