Which living things are we comfortable eating and which are we not? That’s the question that each human being must answer for herself. Carnivorous non-human animals never have the chance to ask themselves this question since they live and eat by instinct and necessity, and so we have no model to look to in the animal kingdom.
If human beings were forced to eat meat in order to survive, then there would be no moral question here. But in fact our species can survive and thrive by eating a variety of living things. We can consume and derive nourishment from living things as diverse as carrots, buffalo, wheat, chickens, or even other human beings. And since unlike other animals we are not forced by instinct or necessity to eat any of these particular things, we must choose what we feel comfortable putting into our body. Unless we are morally comfortable eating all living things, including other people (which some ancient societies were but no one that I know is), we must draw a line in the sand: “I will eat X, but I will not eat Y.” But where should we draw the line? And what will our criterion be?
The carnivore likes to accuse the vegetarian of a contradiction here: “You won’t eat chickens, but you will eat carrots. Aren’t carrots living too?” The major problem with the carnivore’s argument at this point is that he doesn’t realize that it is also directed back at himself. Yes, vegetarians have to ‘draw the line’ somewhere, and this is going to be fairly arbitrary. But the carnivore has the exact same duty to ‘draw the line!’ Most people in the West have no problem eating cows, but they refuse on moral grounds to eat dogs. They will eat pigs, but cats are strictly off limits. And of course it would be a grave injustice to eat another human being. But what do dogs, cats, and human beings have that cows, pigs, and chickens do not have?
Take for example a carnivore who draws the line this way: “I will eat any animal, but I will not eat other human beings.” OK, but why in the world did you draw the line right below humans? Because they are rational? Because they are self-conscious? Well, there are some monkeys that are more rational and self-conscious then some humans born with developmental disabilities or in a coma. Surely you don’t propose that it’s morally justifiable to eat someone just because their I.Q. is too low! Or perhaps you take a religious route and propose that humans are off-limits for food because humans, unlike other animals, were made in the image of God. OK, but is that the reason that you do not eat people – just because of that verse in Genesis? If you were not aware of that verse, you would happily slaughter and eat your neighbor? No, I think that there are some undiagnosed moral intuitions underneath the surface that the carnivore has not seriously addressed.
