The Ethics of Eating Animals

On: The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. Chapter 17.

Everyone has their own opinion on the morality of eating meat. As Pollan puts it, some choose to become vegetarian, and some avoid the issue by ignoring the process by which their meat becomes available to them. The third option, which Pollan stresses, is to become more conscious of the treatment that food animals receive, the environments which they are raised in, and the overall production system of which the animals are a part. Pollan discusses many aspects behind the morality of eating meat. He suggests that the consumer's removal from the reality of large scale meat production (not to mention food animals in general) has led to the questionable mode of production that many people today say is inhumane. There are many arguments against using animals as food including "humans don't need meat to survive" and "using animals for meat puts them through unnecessary stress". However, there are many aspects surrounding the question of morality that are rarely considered. For instance, the human race has domesticated certain species for the purpose of forming symbiotic relationships with the animals- we provide them with food, shelter, and protection from their natural predators, in exchange for the products they produce, including manure, eggs, milk, wool, hides, and meat. As a consequence, these animals are no longer able to survive in the wild, they are genetically unprepared. In addition, as pollan explains "it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is with the health of nature- rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls- then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do" (327).
One question that always stumps those who are diehard anti-meat advocates is the diets of those in countries less fortunate than ours who do not necessarily have the means to grow produce suitable for a rounded diet. Can we say that it is morally unacceptable for them to eat meat? In the US, the industrialized system that feeds the majority of us clearly has its flaws when it comes to "humanely" slaughtered animals. The alternative to this not so appitizing system is to be conscious of where your food comes from- know that it was raised in a manner where the animals were able to express their natural character and grow in a healthy fashion. As Pollan says, "What's wrong with eating animals is the practice, not the principle" (328). If consumers were more aware of the industrialized food chain that eventually ends up on their plate, would they be more likely to seek alternative methods of meat production?