The Ethics of Eating Meat (original) (raw)

How Food Shaming Meat Eaters Hinders Rather than Helps the Fight Against Climate Change

2020

This paper was originally written for Michael Schmitt’s PSYC 461/960 course Critical Social Psychology of Climate Change. The assignment asked students to write a paper intended for a general audience, rather than a standard academic paper (i.e., contractions/casual language permitted; informed by research without requiring explicit citations/references), about any topic that incorporated aspects of a critical social psychological approach to climate change. The paper uses “Other” citation style.

'Cowgate:’ Meat Eating and Climate Change Denial

Climate Change Denial and Public Relations (Routledge), 2020

“‘Cowgate:’ Meat Eating and Climate Change Denial” Climate Change Denial and Public Relations. Strategic Communication and Interest Groups in Climate Inaction Routledge. (2019):178-194. doi:10.4324/9781351121798. Invited Arguably, the single most categorical and effective statement on the environmental dangers of the raising of animals for human consumption was issued by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In 2006, the FAO produced a 391-page report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, concluding that animal farming presents a “major threat to the environment” with such “deep and wide-ranging” impacts that it should rank as a leading focus for environmental policy. The report concluded that “[t] he livestock sector is a major player [in climate change], responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport”(Steinfeld et al., 2006, p. xxi). Nor was the call for action at all hidden: As Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch, put it (FAO, 2006):“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation”. 1 Furthermore, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, repeatedly suggested that people should decrease their consumption of meat in order to help offset climate change. As he stated (in Jowit, 2008):“In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity…. Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there”. The evidence caused Yvo de Boer, then executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to conclude “the best solution would be …

The Ethics and Politics of Meat Taxes and Bans

New Omnivorism and Strict Veganism: Critical Perspectives, 2023

Policy change is needed to adequately address the harms of animal agriculture. But there is substantial disagreement about what policy changes would be ethical and effective. For example, should we focus on relatively moderate interventions, such as informational and procurement policy changes, or should we also focus on relatively radical interventions such as meat taxes or bans? In this chapter, we consider the principled and practical pros and cons of meat taxes and bans. We argue that, to the extent that these interventions are (a) necessary to prevent massive and unnecessary harm and (b) can be implemented without violating basic rights, governments should implement them. We close by suggesting that a mixed approach involving taxes, bans, and other interventions will likely be best in many contexts in the short term.

You Can’t Have Your Steak and Call for Political Action on Climate Change, Too

The Journal of Value Inquiry

In the face of massive harms, like climate change, many of us want to do something. We're told that driving, our diets, and other consumption choices contribute to climate change. So, a natural impulse is to change one's consumption habits. As I'll use the term, 'conscious consumption' refers to the practice of purchasing and using goods in ways that, if enough others also engaged in the relevant behavior, would prevent or mitigate some harm or injustice. On its face, it might seem obvious that you should engage in conscious consumption. Since our choices are exacerbating climate change, you should change your choices. Yet your individual choice to drive a car, eat beef, or have a child does not seem to make a difference to a problem as massive as climate change. Some point this out and conclude that conscious consumption, while perhaps valuable in some respects, has nothing to do with our obligations to fight climate change-where our obligations involve political action aimed at combatting climate change. To give you a sense of this combination of claims, consider these remarks from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's influential article, "It's Not My Fault!"

Trump's Dangerous Authoritarian Ideology

Concerned Philosophers for Peace Annual Conference, 2021

The United States is at a crossroads. In recent decades, it didn’t much matter whether the president was a democrat or a republican: the results were slightly different but very much the same. The democrats championed more social programs and the republicans took more of a free market stance, but in the end society grooved into familiar contours. Trump’s presidency has changed all of that by entering us into the dangerous territory of authoritarianism. The author begins by differentiating authoritarianism from totalitarianism. In totalitarianism, the ruler has total control over the citizens, while in authoritarianism, the ruler disregards truth and pursues power by any means necessary. Using examples, the author argues that while Trump sometimes seems to think he has total rule, he is best labeled as an authoritarian. One of the common characteristics of authoritarianism and totalitarianism is their reliance upon ideology. Hannah Arendt states that ideology has succeeded when people have lost contact with each other and the reality around them such that the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist. For Arendt, ideology is invoked by sowing doubt into authorities so as to create a world where nobody is reliable and nothing can be relied upon. Trump has proven himself to be a master of ideology: he rejects science, as can be seen clearly with his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as his environmentally destructive policies that fly in the face of the stark reality of climate change; he sows doubt into any media outlet that doesn’t align with his interests; and his overarching emphasis on law and order after the unjust killing of George Floyd and shooting of Jacob Blake blatantly prioritizes politics over respect for human dignity. The dangerous thing about ideology is not that one person is delusional: the danger, rather, lies in the ability to garner disciples who buy into the rhetoric and act accordingly. Louis Althusser coins the term “interpellation” to explain this process. If ideological manipulation works “the individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in order that … he shall (freely) accept his subjection, i.e., in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection ‘all by himself.’” Upon outlining Althusser’s concept, the author argues that Trump supporters who deny the existence of climate change, as California wildfires burn relentlessly, and who refuse to wear masks during a pandemic, as the U.S. deaths outpace every other country, have all been interpellated in Althusser’s sense of the term. The author then uses Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenage suspect of the recent Kenosha shootings, who has been front row at Trump rallies and has a social media feed filled with “Blue Lives Matter” as a demonstration of the danger involved in ideology. Using Johan Galtung’s conception of positive peace, that is, social systems that promote human flourishing, the author ends by finding hope in the Black Lives Matter movement and increasing interest in a Green New Deal.