Eating+Meat+and+Ethics,+can+you+really+have+both?

Name: Tracey Huxley Tutor: Michelle Newcomb




 * The Cultural Artifact **

The ethics of eating meat is highly controversial topic which has generated much discussion about whether it is morally right for humans to eat animals. This cultural artefact depicts a dog and a pig and poses the question “Why LOVE one but EAT the other?” It is designed to make the audience think about why they think puppies are cute and should not be eaten while they eat cute piglets without a second thought. The ad has been designed and circulated by Mercy for Animals Canada which is a pro animal rights group that advocates for humans to choose vegetarian lifestyles in an effort to prevent cruelty to farmed animals. This ad is less confronting for consumers while still delivering a powerful message.

The topic is the ethics of eating meat and whether humans have a moral obligation to prevent cruelty to other species. This artefact is relevant to public health since it forces us to question our ideas about eating animals. It uses the fact that humans have a penchant for cute and cuddly things by displaying baby animals (a dog and pig) to draw the audience in while confronting them with the harsh reality that although both animals are cute, one is a family member while the other is a family dinner.
 * The Public Health Issue **


 * Literature Review **

Eating meat raises many environmental issues and as such, the ethical issues of eating meat involve the ethical issues surrounding whether it is acceptable for humans to eat meat despite the evidence suggesting that it is harmful to the environment. Henning (2011) uses the example of president Herbert Hoover’s speech given in 1928 where Hoover idealised the vision of ‘a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage’ as the current state of the Western world where we really do have a chicken on every plate due to industrialisation. The author makes the point that because of the industrialisation methods that have made it a reality to have a car in every garage, this technology has meant that chickens can now be put on everyone’s plate more readily than in the past thanks to factory farming (Henning, 2011).

Utiliarian theorists have examined the issue of the ethics of eating meat.Peter Singer has examined the ethics of eating meat and has been debating the issue in the public realm since the seventies. He has recently made the argument that because other countries are adopting Western practices of producing animals for meat, it is causing greater harm to those countries than their traditional agriculture methods (Singer 2005). Singer (2005) makes the argument that this is because mass production of animals for food means that food has to be produced to feed these animals. In more traditional farming methods, the animals just ate whatever was in the field with the occasional supplement but modern farming has meant that food needs to be grown specifically for the animals to eat (Singer, 2005). The use of synthetic fertilisers to grow the food for the animals has impacted the environment and because of the large amount of animals in feedlots, they are producing large amounts of manure (Singer, 2005). In traditional methods, the manure is just spread out on the farm but because of the concentrated amount of animals producing manure, there is just too much so it needs to be trucked away (Singer, 2005). It ends up in waterways and causes more pollution. A growing population is one of the reasons most frequently cited by those who advocate for mass meat production but Singer argues that this method is causing more harm than good (Singer, 2005).

The case example that Singer uses is China and it’s increasing importation of soybeans and corn to feed the factory-farmed animals that are being bred to feed the booming population (Singer, 2005). He argues that the people could just eat the soybeans and corn like they used to traditionally rather than eating meat which is inefficient and costs more to produce (Singer, 2005). This would lower greenhouse gas emissions and the amount needed would be much less than what is fed to the animals (Singer, 2005).

Singer (2005) states that meat is being produced to feed growing middle classes in other countries when it is a luxury item that is unaffordable for the people with lower socioeconomic status. It is important to distinguish between morals and ethics according to Singer (2005). He states that he is not a moral absolutist who sees eating meat as absolutely wrong under every circumstance (Singer, 1980). He points out that utilitarianism in the classical sense holds the principal of minimal pain and maximal pleasure (Singer, 1980). Animals have been discovered to feel pain but our society is still using factory faming for the pleasure of eating meat despite the pain that it causes animals (Singer, 2005).

Eating meat has also been examined by feminist theorists. In the Sexual Politics of Meat, Adams (2010) discusses how eating meat is conforming to a patriarchy since serving meat has traditionally been women’s work and cooking meat for men (i.e your husband) has been the subject of many cookbooks. It is also a symbol of masculinty and by giving up meat, a male is relinquishing his masculinity (Adams, 2010). Adams (2010) points out that caring about animals has traditionally been attributed to women and by not giving animals rights by acknowledging their pain and suffering at the hands of humans, it is the same as not acknowledging women’s suffering in the patriarchal system.

The social groups affected by this issue are the meat consumers, animal rights groups and also the main stakeholders in the meat industry such as the farmers and the business that sell meat. The Animal Welfare Groups can be divided into 2 main categories: those who advocate for animals to be treated humanely before slaughter (such as the RSPCA) and those who advocate for a veto on eating animals and choosing more compassionate food choices instead. The RSPCA is an example of a group that advocates for ‘the prevention of animal cruelty for all animals great and small’ but has the metaphorical elephant in the room where they give a stamp on egg cartons because the chicken was free-range before it was slaughtered. They consider animal cruelty as an issue that stops with the treatment of the animals and don’t advocate for better lives for the animal
 * Cultural and Social Analysis **

The theories that have been examined in this essay are feminist-vegetarian critical theory and utilitarianism. This cultural artefact raises the issue of why one animal (a puppy) is more valued and cherished as a pet when we eat other animals (in this case, a piglet).This issue is important and relevant to public health because of the consequences that may happen to humans as a result of animal consumption (e.g environmental, medical) and the moral argument of whether the animals have a right to the same level of health and life enjoyment that humans value for themselves. The consumers themselves have the choice of whether to actually purchase the product.

I strongly identified with this cultural artefact since I have been Vegan for 7 years and often wonder how people could eat animals but be disgusted at the thought of eating an animal that we have domesticated into the family home. I have learnt that there can be many different theories on the one issue and in this case, there is no one theory that is right or wrong and the theories behind the issue of the ethics of eating meat will be interpreted and therefore judged differently depending on the person’s own beliefs on the subject.
 * My Analysis and Learning Reflections **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I chose this cultural artefact because it was designed to make consumers think rather than shock them. I personally think the shock tactics used by some vegetarian advocate groups can be off-putting and hinder the cause of animal rights. I have learned that there is a difference between animal welfare which is generally where the animal has the right to humane treatment before it is slaughtered and animal rights where the issue of animal rights involves the philosophy of whether the animals right to a natural right is greater than our man-made right of eating the animal and shortening its lifespan in the process.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> The theories that I presented are just a small sampling of the many different theories on the topic of the ethics of eating meat. These theories were chosen as examples of the schools of thought which appealed most to the author and in the interests of keeping the section concise.Realising this will help me critically analyse and interpret information in the future since it all depends on who is disseminating it, what their agenda is; and what morals and values have lead to the judgements that they have formed. I have also learned that with a topic such as this, the audience’s pre-existing notions on the topic will highly influence how they perceive and analyse the ideas presented to them. For example, my own veganism has lead me to write this differently to how I would expect someone who feels humans are supposed to eat meat would write it. I am extremely passionate about animal rights and will continue to advocate for better, more equitable treatment of animals.


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">References: **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Adams, C. J. (2011). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Henning, B. G. (1980). Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’: The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet. Ethics & the Environment, 16 (2), pp. 63 - 94

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Singer, P. "The Ethics of Eating", China Dialogue, 30 Aug 2006. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. <https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/326>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Singer, P. (1980). UtilItarianism and Vegetarianism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9 (4), pp. 325-337.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**Contributions** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">
 * 1) https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64735698
 * 2) https://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64736138

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">