Three hundred years ago, slavery was widely accepted. That one human could enslave another was not viewed as something innately immoral. In Roman times, it was considered acceptable to have gladiators fight each other to the death for the enjoyment of the crowds. Many societies condoned human sacrifice. All of these practices, of course, are totally rejected by civilized society. Over at National Review, Matthew Scully argues that our carnivorous practice of meat consumption will go the same way.
Scully quotes an earlier article by noted columnist Charles Krauthammer: “surely some contemporary practices will be deemed equally abominable by succeeding generations. The only question is: Which ones? I’ve long thought it will be our treatment of animals. I’m convinced that our great-grandchildren will find it difficult to believe that we actually raised, herded, and slaughtered them on an industrial scale — for the eating.”
Whether or not Scully’s assumption that meat-eating will become the ethical equivalent of slavery and child sacrifice is true is irrelevant. The mere fact that society assumes something to be immoral does not, of course, make it so. But Scully’s arguments suffer from a deeper flaw. Throughout the article, he seems to blur the distinction between animal and human. “You don’t have to see comparisons to Dachau,” Scully writes, “to understand that all these little creatures deserve better than this.” Dachau, of course, was the first of the Nazi concentration camps.
There are, to be sure, legitimate arguments in favor of abstention from meat consumption. And, of course, cruelty to animals ought to be abhorred. Krauthammer, for his part, eloquently argues against trapping animals in zoos and aquariums for human enjoyment. But Krauthammer is careful to distinguish between man and animal. “I firmly believe that man is the measure of all things… I cringe at medical experimentation, but if you need to study cats’ eyes in order to spare some humans from blindness, do it.” It is this crucial distinction that distinguishes his argument from Scully’s.
As humans, we are responsible to treat animals with care, not cruelty. But the lines must not be blurred. Elevating animals to quasi-human status is but a small step to demoting other humans and considering them quasi-animals.
Interesting topic, medical experimentation on animals and slaughterhouses are indeed hard core brutal realities. That being said, as far as meat eating goes, I live in a valley “on the range” as it were since cattle are brought in for the winter months and wander freely about BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land…and last Saturday morning a herd of about 200 Elk passed within 500 yards of my place heading south. I have trapped two foxes inside my 140 foot by 140 foot fenced in property..and the next one I trap, and I will, I will eat it. I have killed Jack Rabbits and eaten them. Herds of antelope occasionally come right up to my fence line…I have drawn my compound bow on one’s heart only about 25 yards away and did not fire since I did not have the need for all that meat at the time. These are all open range critters.
As long as the human body needs protein and fat and animals are available…meat eating will continue.
On a much more dangerous extrapolation of this topic…since grocery stores only stock a relatively small amount of food capable of sustaining a population for a matter of days…and due to the vast vast number of people now congregated in cities across the land…any break down of the transportation system leads to liability towards cannibalism on an unprecedented scale.
The more immediate danger and consideration is not whether meat eating will continue…but whether some one will soon be looking to eat you. Which religion would offset and the breakdown of religion facilitate…but that is another topic.
You might laugh, but there is a real life contemporary example, when the Soviet Union broke down and could not support its satellites there are two very pertinent paths that were taken…immediately Cuba set out on a country wide Home/Community Garden program and they actually created a bountiful harvest for their people…North Korea did not take this path and thus the famine and cannibalism during the mid-1990’s.
Listen to the wind for the person who espouses Home/Community Gardens and small animal husbandry, a serious agrarian backbone to our Country…they are a wise and loving person who does so. Even Communism has this aspect…though the Socialists of our day seem to ignore that part and only use the doctrines which tear down success and rich people.