Hey Chris,

Interesting question. Here’s a thought. I have a paper I never did much with about the place of animals in Confucianism where I give a certain defense of so called ‘speciesism’ from a Confucian perspective. Basically I try to argue that the focus on relationships in Confucianism, conjoined with a naturalism that dictates that certain human relationships are essential to our moral development and agency, leads to the idea that humans properly give moral priority to humans over other animals. It occurred to me when I was working on this paper that there might be a similar argument for treating some other animals as in a different moral category than other, other animals for the same kind of reasons. I think we can have morally important relationships with animals, and this can matter. This is why I think it is wrong to eat pets, and I think people who make the mistake of getting too attached to live stock by treating them like pets and giving them names and so on *rightfully* feel conflicted at slaughter time. We owe more to animals who play that kind of role in our lives. So–here’s my idea–it’s wrong to eat dogs in particular because they, by their nature and ours, can be so much more to us than food.

It’s an interesting question. I agree with Dennis that the most likely path to justifying such a distinction in acceptable ways of treating non-humans is in finding a way to assign some non-humans to a distinct moral category. One might, as suggested, claim that we can have morally significant relationships with some animals and that this makes it unacceptable to eat them. It then remains to ask what counts as a morally significant relationship, and there are plenty of possibilities to choose from. Or we could take a virtue ethics point of view to this and say that anyone who would eat an animal that he had previously treated as his friend is not the sort of person you would want as your friend: his understanding of the nature of friendship is deficient.

These sorts of limitations, however, only seem to limit our behaviour to individual animals. Limits that apply at the species level seem to me to require a different approach. We know that there are those who think that it is unacceptable to eat whales and dolphins and higher primates, for the reason that they are sentient like us. Of course you then have to ask what the moral relevance of sentience is. If you’re a Kantian, I suppose you could say that any animal that has the glimmer of a possibility of knowledge of the moral law has to be treated as unconditionally valuable. And you don’t eat that which has unconditional value.

I think a few countries have introduced laws that recognise something like rights for higher primates (New Zealand, I think, and Switzerland,) and one of those rights would probably be the fundamental right to life. But why some rights exist for chimps and others don’t is a bit hard to say. It would have to depend on your story of where rights came from. If rights and duties are just the limits on behaviour that lead to the proper flourishing of human life (whether that limit is set by God or Reason,) then it seems difficult to justify giving any kind of natural rights to non-humans.

I’m broadly in agreement with the other commenters here but just to throw a wrench into the mix, I have to ask what constitutes a human person?

I mean, as an American, I can wax strict Constitutionalist in the sense that conservative Justices mean it and say that certain humans are really only 3/5ths of a person.

Naturally, civilized folks don’t engage in the grading of other humans — Confucius, that arch-reactionary, spoke against such practices. And when an arch-reactionary from two-and-a-half millennia ago is being more progressive than you are, well, maybe you ought reconsider your stance.

Anyway, I think we do already rank the chain of being in a concentric manner and that how we view these situations depends on how wide we allow our circle to reach. Vegetarianism, indeed, veganism would seem to be the most moral path. And this isn’t just Eastern knowledge, freakin’ Frankenstein relies on us making that connection! But I am perfectly content in recognizing that I am not yet morally developed enough to reach such heights. Heck, the closer I get, the further it seems — you know?

I dunno. Lately I’ve been playing around with the idea that a thing’s telos is externally provided. Planets don’t move around in circles because it is in the nature of heavenly beings to go in circles but rather they go around in ellipses because the gravity of the Sun compels them to. Likewise with animals. So are bred to be eaten, and that is their final cause as dictated by their superiors. Others are bred to be companions, and that is their final cause as dictated by their superiors.

What determines superior and inferior? Well, the pomos have pretty much shown that trying to demonstrate why is a fool’s errand. And, hey, we don’t want to rock the Platonic (or is it Aristotelean? I forget) explanation that what makes a slave is that they are a slave.

So, we shouldn’t be overly given to grading what we heuristically recognize as “same” but the very nature of our hierarchical existence demands that we do indeed form gradients.

As a pragmatist, I’ll say that eating meat has served us well enough throughout our history so we may as well keep doing it. That is, admittedly, a weak excuse since it could justify any number of atrocities.

As a hedonist, I’ll say that eating meat is awesome. That is, admittedly, a weak excuse since it could justify any number of atrocities.

Failing any sound philosophical justification (at least insofar as I can see) I’ll appeal to the mean. A paltry excuse, hardly a “big moment” type answer. But I think that it navigates the path between raw idealism and raw hedonism. And that is important because neglecting that the perfect tends to become the enemy of the good. Nobody wants that.

So, if you like meat, eat meat. Whatever meat that may be. Just not too much.

The Aktins diet was found by many to be ultimately unsatisfying, so our own innate sense of the good is in keeping with this sense of moderation. Follow that and, ehh, excessive though our Bourgeoisie existence may be, we won’t veer into the sort of decadence that really messes things up.

Granted, we already have, but if we can even moderate that, well, at least that is an improvement.