A Moral Case for Meat
Eliane Mitchell

20 October 2017

From Peter Singer'sAnimal Liberationto arguments offered by the ancient Greeks and Hindus, many philosophers and environmentalists have made convincing cases against the practice of eating meat. But could there be a moral case in favor of it?

One animal welfare advocate offers that eating meat gives animals a life worth living. By eating meat, in essence, humanscreate有价值和有目的的生命，因为如果没有对它们的肉的需求，大多数农场动物就不会活着。但正如作者所指出的，请注意，这种“有价值的生活总比没有生活好”的立场，很难证明适用于人类。举个例子，考虑一下抚养孩子来生产器官并将其重新分配给其他人的前景:我们难道不会认为这种“创造有价值的生命”的形式是不道德的吗?

For this reason dissatisfied with the above argument and a few others, author Nathanael Johnson tries to explain then whyvery convincing纯素食主义或素食主义的论点往往无法迫使食肉动物改变他们的生活方式。他问道，素食主义是否太过绝对或二元，以至于无法说服肉食者转变?约翰逊以宗教为例指出，素食主义和宗教设定了“大多数人永远达不到的标准”。因此，他总结道，我们应该把对肉类的善恶观念放在一边，而应该确保动物的生活条件符合更高的道德标准。

但作者的妥协是否足够深入呢?他的吃肉论点是，即使鸡在被宰杀之前，可以住在更适合它们本性的围栏里，抓着救命稻草?Tell us your thoughts and read more of the article here:

http://grist.org/food/is-there-a-moral-case-for-meat/

Comments(1)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 -- 12:09 PM

Anthropologists seem to have

Anthropologists seem to have arrived at their own conclusions about whether our most direct ancestors (those of the hominid persuasion) ate meat. It appears that they did, and, probably lots of it when times were flush. To intone that they likely did not give much thought to diet might be presumptive. To further intone that they may not have given much thought about anything would conclude that they were little more than hairy apes. Well, there it is. We are free to conclude what we will. A meat(or largely meat) diet appears to have worked in the big picture of life on Earth. Mr. Johnson's conclusion seems sound to me. Lions and tigers and bears would agree, yes?

Tags