Abstract

This essay examines the ethical dilemma of justifying the killing and consumption of animals within a Westernized context. It views this prioritization through the lens of the feminist theory of ethics of care and evaluates the result in light of traditional ethical theories such as ethics of justice. It explores the influences of hierarchical relationships and the role that emotions such as care and compassion play within this ethical justification of killing animals for pleasure. 

Introduction

To eat meat or not to eat meat, that is the question. The ethics surrounding the killing and consumption of meat within the West has become an increasingly popular topic of conversation. More often than not, this dialogue includes an abundance of moral guilt. Eating meat has become a point of both politicization and social shame. This debate includes emotional arguments and cold-hearted reasoning when approaching animal welfare.

  While ethics of care and justice both aid in addressing several of these concerns- the culturally ingrained gendered worldviews still exist. So much so that oftentimes being vegetarian and caring for the environment is associated with feminine traits while traditional views of domination and meat consumption are primarily male-oriented.  While this paper does not examine the Christian perspective of stewardship- it does acknowledge the mindful consumption of meat and how humans relate to their environment through ethics of care and ethics of justice. 

Contextualized Morality

Contextualizing morality within the framework of killing an animal for the sake of human pleasure is necessary. The traditional moral justification of killing an animal consisted of a stated objective: food, survival, or protection. For instance, it is generally accepted within most cultures that torturing and killing animals solely for human pleasure is objectively wrong. Yet, it is important to clarify the varying definitions of pleasure. Oxford defines pleasure as “a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.”  The argument can be made that humans within a modern context largely consume meat for pleasure rather than survival. Operating off this basis begs the question: why is it that this specific form of pleasure within the dialogue of food takes precedence over other forms of pleasure? Or better yet, why does human pleasure trump animal welfare? 

The prioritization of pleasure of humans is where an ethical paradox presents itself. It is widely accepted within a modern Western framework that killing an animal for human consumption is morally justified. However, this same code of ethics does not seem to extend to all animals, such as cats and dogs? Why is it wrong to kill a dog for human pleasure but not a cow? Both of these examples include killing an animal for some sort of human pleasure, yet both require context. This inquiry can be examined through the lens of ethics of care and ethics of justice.

For much of history, the ethical question for our ancestors was the balance between their own life or the animal’s life.

For much of history, the ethical question for our ancestors was the balance between their own life or the animal’s life. However, within a modernized context- the slaughtering of an animal in the majority of cases does not determine whether we live or die. The traditional belief that humans are reliant on the consumption of meat to survive is proven not only to be false but there is a growing body of research to suggest meat consumption may actually be harmful to human health. 

Many of these studies link red meat consumption to a series of health issues, including cancer, strokes, diabetes, and several diseases, including respiratory, heart, kidney, and liver.  It is safe to conclude that the majority of meat consumers within first-world countries consume meat for pleasure rather than survival. Pleasure within the context of the justified killing of an animal can be defined by the prioritization of the pleasure of the consumer enjoying the taste and texture of meat.

Contrasting Ethics of Care to Ethics of Justice

Ethics of care is an ideology found within feminist ethics as a method for contextualizing how individuals relationally and experientially approach their environment. Feminist ethics was first developed by Carol Gilligan in her 1993 Harvard publication entitled, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.   This essay was an attempt to revise, reformulate and rethink traditional patriarchal ethical ideologies. There are two critical aspects to this theory: the combination of reason and emotion and the role of relationships within ethical decision-making. 

This type of relationship-based ethical justification directly contrasts the traditional and largely male-dominated theories of ethics of justice, which emphasize universal rules and principles. Ethics of justice is inherently linked to traditionally male traits such as reason and logic- while this stereotype has been widely disputed, gendered morality still exists within many fields of study, including psychology and ethics. 

The Moral Influence of Emotion 

Ethics of care argues in defense of the positive moral aspects of emotions. Several of the emotions highlighted within this theory are care and compassion. This further promotes rejection of the socially constructed mutually exclusive dichotomy between the coexistence of reason and emotion. Ethics of care argues that emotions are necessary for guiding moral actions and properly executing ethical decisions. Within this framework, the care or concern of the other is emphasized, therefore contextualizing morality according to the strength or impact of the relationship.  

The moral aspects of care and concern can be highlighted within the conversation of when it is ethically justifiable to kill an animal. The commercialism of meat production guards individuals from having to witness the slaughter of animals resulting in the form of ethical dissociation. This concept is referred to by Steve Loughnan, Nick Haslam, and Brock Bastian as the “meat paradox,” which can be summarized by stating that many individuals enjoy eating meat but do not like killing animals.

The commercialism of meat production guards individuals from having to witness the slaughter of animals resulting in ethical dissociation.

While emotions such as care or concern may inherently exist, there is limited opportunity to apply them to meat consumption within a modern context. The link between empathy-rooted emotions such as care and concern and their relationship with meat consumption has been tested among many animal rights advocates. For example, Jonas R.Kunst and Sigrid M.Hohle tested a hypothesis linking cognitive dissonance and empathy found among meat-eaters.  There were several components of this study measuring empathy levels among respondents, including the language used in menus, i.e. using the word “cow” versus “beef” and “pig” versus “pork,” meat advertisements that included pictures of animals, and leaving heads on animals when served. 

All three of these tests resulted in increased empathy levels among respondents, and in some cases, they chose vegetarian options over meat options based on adjustments in these variables. The findings of this study can be contextualized through the lens of ethics of care by accounting for the influence of emotions in moral decision-making. Emotion and empathy in ethics view meat consumption as more than our own personal pleasure but rather acknowledge the welfare of the animal.

In contrast, ethics of justice argues there should be consistency in the ethical consumption of meat. Eating animals for pleasure is either right or wrong-not circumstantial based on emotions swaying decision making. In this view, justice is and should be impersonal- it is blind, there is an objective right and wrong in a situation. Right and wrong are found through a reasonable and rational thought process. Advocates of this stream would criticize ethics of care, arguing that relationships and emotion cloud the basic moral code, impeding an individual’s logical thinking. This theory advocates for an impartial and verifiable method to ensure equitable treatment and outcomes regardless of the influence of emotion or relationship.

Both ethics of justice and ethics of care highlight an underlying double- bond about the meat paradox: either a. humans should recognize the meat they consume was a once living, breathing animal and, as a result, choose to thoughtfully proceed with full knowledge. Or option b. once emotionally acknowledging the life of the animal- one must cease consuming meat altogether. However, humans cannot have both- it is an ethical dichotomy to consume meat without recognizing the life of the animal. Once an individual resolves their cognitive dissonance, they can then morally proceed according to their values.

…it is an ethical dichotomy to consume meat without recognizing the life of the animal. Once an individual resolves their cognitive dissonance, they can then morally proceed according to their values.

Ethical Relational Hierarchies 

The second aspect to ethics of care contextualizes the perspective and influence of relational hierarchies; this view recognizes how relationships significantly influence personal operations and decision-making within ethics. Within this particular case, it is critical to evaluate how humans contextually relate to animals. Within a modern Westernized environment, humans in large are located at the top of the food chain. Due to technology, and development it is very rare that humans ever find themselves in a situation where they are on an equal playing field with an animal. 

This is a significant shift from the traditional narrative of man versus wild that has existed for hundreds of years. Unless someone is camping- it is quite rare to fear an animal. For the most part, individuals have limited interaction with animals, particularly within a metropolitan context. In large, most people’s relationship with animals can be divided into two relationships: the food in their fridge or the pet in their living room. This is where evaluating relationships within ethics is paramount. There seems to be an underlying ethical quandary. 

For example, why is it morally justified to kill and eat a chicken, but a crime to barbeque the family dog? In both situations, an animal must die for the sake of human pleasure, yet- in the United States, it is illegal to eat both cats and dogs but not cows or chickens.  The answer to this dilemma is found in the role that relationships play in ethics. According to the feminist ethics of care theory, humans only understand what they can relate to.

This may help to explain why humans morally justify killing certain animals and protecting others. Most cultures prioritize the welfare of certain animals over others; despite 98% of animals being invertebrates, the West places cats, dogs, and sometimes horses at the top of this hierarchy.  These animals are overrepresented in film, literature, and photography. We buy them toys, clothes, and treats and worry about their welfare and happiness. In other words, we cultivate real emotional relationships with them. 

While Western society, for the most part, places dogs and cats above chickens and cows on the animal hierarchy, the emotional favoritism of certain animals is widely dependant on cultural values and norms. To further illustrate this point, within Nigerian culture, people commonly consume dog meat in certain dishes, and in many Asian countries such as China, humans regularly eat cats. Furthermore, in India, for instance, there is an inflated emphasis placed on cows due to Hindu beliefs and teachings that consider them holy animals, yet many stray dogs starve in the streets. Ethics of care within this framework aids in contextualizing morality through accounting for various aspects of loyalty and strength of relationships, not merely the end decision. 

While ethics of care argues that relationships must be accounted for within ethical decision-making, ethics of justice argues that it is either always morally wrong to consume animals for pleasure or it is not regardless of culture or relationship. Valuing some animals above others is a problematic mindset and does not promote the principles of justice- it is an inherently discriminatory practice that does little to further equality and justice within society. 

Conclusion

To eat meat or not to eat meat– that question still remains. However, both choices require the thoughtful evaluation of human pleasure associated with meat consumption and the prioritization of selective animal welfare. Ethics of justice and ethics of care provide helpful frameworks to morally contextualize the moral decisions to consume meat and do not. There are various lenses to view justified animal killing and the consumption of meat. The conclusion of which is that each choice can be ethically justified depending on which set of lenses one wears. 

 Ethics of care provides a framework to contextualize how humans relate to animals and the emotions associated with meat consumption and ethics of justice, on the other hand, view eating meat by evaluating the moral right and wrong of the victim and perpetrator. Each of these views provides different outcomes- neither one is more inherently valuable than the other. However, these ethics should inspire individuals to think through decisions they make when consuming meat ethically.

Citations:

  “Pleasure Noun – Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes: Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at Oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com.” pleasure noun – Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. Accessed December 8, 2021. 

  Botes, Annatjie. “A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care.” Journal of advanced nursing 32, no. 5 (2000): 1071-1075.

 Cilliers, Paul. “Complexity, ethics and justice.” In Critical Complexity, pp. 181-190. De Gruyter, 2016.

 Dalal, Anjali. “Explicating Environmental Patriarchy: An Examination Through Gender and Environment Perspectives.” ANTYAJAA: Indian Journal of Women and Social Change 4, no. 2 (2019): 145-157.

 Dave, Naisargi N. “Something, everything, nothing; or, cows, dogs, and maggots.” Social Text 35, no. 1 (2017): 37-57.

 de Boer, Joop, Hanna Schösler, and Harry Aiking. ““Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges.” Appetite 76 (2014): 120-128.

  Fox, Karen M., and Gordon Walker. “Reconsidering the relationship between flow and feminist ethics: A response.” Leisure studies 21, no. 1 (2002): 15-26.

  Friedman, Marilyn. What are friends for?. Cornell University Press, 1993.

  Garba, A., Asabe Adamu Dzikwi, P. A. Okewole, Wilson BB Chitunya, A. B. Tirmidhi, H. M. Kazeem, and J. U. Umoh. “Evaluation of dog slaughter and consumption practices related to the control of rabies in Nigeria.” (2013).

  Gilligan, Carol. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, 1993.

 Kmietowicz, Zosia. “Red meat consumption is linked to higher risk of death from most major causes.” (2017).

 Marceau, Justin. “Palliative Animal Law: The War on Animal Cruelty.” Harv. L. Rev. F. 134 (2020): 250. 

 Mather, Jennifer A. “Ethics and care: For animals, not just mammals.” Animals 9, no. 12 (2019): 1018.

  Roberts, John Anthony George. China to Chinatown: Chinese food in the West. Reaktion Books, 2004.

 Slote, Michael. The ethics of care and empathy. Routledge, 2007.