Monday , 24 November 2014
Home > Opinions > New York Times: Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat

New York Times: Tell Us Why It’s Ethical to Eat Meat

Recently I found this article in the New York Times where they were challenging any meat eaters to write articles on why they think it is Ethical to eat meat in 600 words or less, and they have a team of vegans who are going to judge the essays and post a few in the New York Times. (Here is the link).  This was my response:

I found out about this New York Times writing contest the way I believe most people found out about it, that one vegan they are friends with on Facebook opted to post it with a message like “go ahead, try and justify MURDER” or “Come on flesh eaters, let’s see what you got!” It only took me about twelve seconds to think of a response.

I was born with canine teeth which exist to chew meat; therefore I was born into the world with tools to eat meat.  To make the argument that using the tools I was born with is for some reason “unethical” is to argue against either evolution or God depending on your particular belief system. In other words, much in like a court of law, eating meat is ethical because I can site precedent, specifically, the fact I and all humans are born with canine teeth, and to argue against using them is to say that you know better than evolution or God, which let’s be honest, is only something a pompous vegan would say.

It’s important to note here that the question that is being arguing here is really “is it ethical to kill an animal because of a perpetuated carnivorous homosapien history that dates back millions of years,” or five thousand depending on whether or not you’re a Creationist.

Those who follow Darwinian Evolution know that canine teeth could, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, hypothetically turn into flat molars if human beings never ate another piece of meat and only ate vegetables for the next four hundred thousand score. On one hand, this may make it significantly easier to spot vampires, but would make an entire species ill equipped to enjoy a steak. This seems to be the direction vegans want to push the human race. However we must remember humans are in fact animals, and eating meat is in our DNA (proof of which is in your mouth in the form of canines).

The problem with making an ethical argument against something that is in our DNA is that our genetic prerogative to eat meat as a species predates ethics by a few hundred thousand years. Ethics are man made concepts that only come from human beings supposed superiority over every other animal species. Ethics are a man made form of behavioral control which ask us not to act like the animals we genetically are. But guess what, we are animals. Don’t believe me? Eat too much tofu or kale chips one day and wait until your bowels kick into gear and see how superior you are then. You’d kick over a 90 year old woman walking a baby stroller to get to a toilet.  Toilets by the way are just another vessel in which we make ourselves feel superior to animals (one I won’t argue against however because that would be gross). Humans are animals whether or you like it or not (be it evolved ones).

To argue against eating meat is to ignore millions of years of evolutionary genetic programming. Those who don’t enjoy eating meat based on ethical objections can simply chose not to do so. However, that in no way means that people who don’t follow their lead are unethical, because ethics are subjective. One person or group’s ethics aren’t finite because they are made up concepts, and my canine teeth aren’t made up or subjective. (Buy me a nice T-bone steak; I’ll prove it to you).

Adam M
Adam M

I think the teeth aspect is proof enough. We certainly are equipped to survive off of both meat and plants. We aren't sharks after all with saw blades in our mouths. Meat has a place in the human diet as well as plants, but it has to be balanced to give the right nutrients. Most Americans don't have the time to balance the right nutrients to commit to being a vegan. So for the majority of humans it would be unheathly to transition to that type of lifestyle.