CCHU9005 Food and Values

L3 – Eating meat (1)

Joe Y. F. Lau
Philosophy Department
HKU 2024
ANNOUNCEMENTS
First lecture? Course outline on Moodle.
Problem set #1 due 5pm 26 Sept 2022.
IS IT WRONG TO
EAT MEAT?
We should keep an open mind.
What is legal need not be moral.
Think about slavery, sexism.
Biases can be hard to detect.
We can be right for the wrong reason.
The truth is usually more complicated.
EATING MEAT IS FINE
(IN PRINCIPLE)
Remember moral absolutism.
Depends on the source?
Not ALWAYS wrong.

 Lab-grown meat
 Roadkill
 Even …
W H AT
ABOU
T MEA
80 BIL FA T FRO
LION RMING? M ANIM
KILLE AL
D EVE
RY Y E
AR
THREE MAIN
ISSUES
How eating meat affects
- the animals
- our health
- the environment
crowded conditions mistreatment

suffering painful death

HIDDEN SECRET
Pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG, 孕马血清 )
Used in pig and sheep farms.
Produced in Iceland, South America, China …
One Chinese company has 10,000 horses.
More stress, more PMSG?
 56 日肉雞
Profit and animal welfare do not always align
(BROILER
CHICKEN)
踝關節灼傷 (HOCK
BURNS) 腳墊潰瘍 (footpad lesions)
BROOM & REEFMANN (2005): 82% GRADE
A UK CHICKENS

https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2021.e76 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.053
 HK McDonald’s
https://www.instagram.com/mcdonaldshk/
 Watch online
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
“WHY NOT?” WHO HAS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF?
1. Eating meat causes suffering.
2. It is wrong to do something that causes suffering,
unless we have a very good reason for doing it.

Do we have a very good reason for eating meat?

If not, eating meat is wrong.
ARGUMENT FROM
TASTE
“tasty”, “delicious”, “yummy"
“taste better than vegetables”

Meat is tasty.
So, eating meat is morally
correct.
 IS TASTE A GOOD
REASON?
Wrong kind of reason:
Taste offers a causal explanation, not moral reason.
Good taste is not necessary reason:
People still eat meat that is not tasty.
Good taste is not sufficient reason:
Maybe human flesh is even more tasty?
Should we eat cats & dogs? Class survey: No (76%)

Armin Meiwes
Argument from religion

• “God wants us to eat meat.”

• Which religion?
• Not a good basis for law.
• Religious beliefs can
change.
• Heliocentrism, evolution
• Shellfish, pigs, ducks
• = Must eat a lot?
• Love and compassion.
Genesis
1:29-31
“Behold, I have given you every
plant yielding seed that is on the
surface of all the earth, and every
tree which has fruit yielding seed; it
shall be food for you; and to every
beast of the earth and to every
bird of the sky and to everything
that moves on the earth which
has life, I have given every green
plant for food”; and it was so. God
saw all that He had made, and
behold, it was very good.”
ARGUMENT FROM
OWNERSHIP
Animals exist because of us.
So they belong to us.
Therefore, we can eat them.

Are the premises correct?

What about the hidden assumptions?
“X exists because of Y” implies “X is property of Y”, “Y can eat X”?
Ownership does not legitimize cruelty. Extra duty of care?
ARGUMENTS FROM
NATURE
It is natural to eat meat, because:
 We have canine teeth

 Eating meat is part of human nature

 Animals eat each other anyway

 We are at the top of the food chain

 Survival of the fittest

 CANINE TEETH =
MEAT EATER?

Facts:
Hippos & gorillas are herbivores with canine teeth.
Humans have canine teeth. We are omnivores.
Same as pigs, chimps, rats …
WHAT ABOUT THE FOOD
CHAIN?
Humans are NOT at the top of the (scientific) food chain.
In ecology, position in the food chain is measured by trophic level.
Primary producers (plants) =1, Herbivores = 2, Apex predator = 4 / 5
The trophic level reflects the actual composition of the diet.
Zebra 2, jellyfish 3.0, typical bird 3.6, lion = ?, humans = ?
The food chain argument is more about power & human superiority.

2.21
HUMAN
SUPERIORITY
Humans are superior to animals.
So, it is fine to eat animals.
How to measure superiority?
Hidden assumption: X > Y  X can eat Y
What about dogs, monkeys, dolphins?
Why species, not individuals?
What about super-aliens?
X can eat Y ≠ X can be cruel to Y.
THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY: FACTS
VS. VALUES
Mistake: Inferring value conclusions from ONLY empirical facts.
It is morally acceptable to eat meat because:
 Eating meat is legal.
 Eating meat is part of culture / tradition.
 Lots of people eat meat.
 I started eating meat when I was a child.
 Animals eat each other.
VALUE assumptions are needed.
Facts are RELEVANT but not SUFFICIENT.
ARGUMENTS BASED
ON HEALTH
Version #1: “We need meat to SURVIVE.”
Based on science or speculation?
What counts as survival? Days? Years?
People do not die when they become
vegetarians.
Do we need A LOT of meat?
The need to survive does not legitimize
cruelty or entail the right to kill.
VERSION #2:
WE NEED MEAT TO BE
HEALTHY
What do scientists & nutritionists say?
NUTRITION
Macro vs. micronutrients
Plants can provide all proteins,
carbohydrates, fat, minerals.
Vitamins: plants have most.
 K2 : Rare, except in fermented food.
 No B12 in plants.
 Pills / fortified food, dairy, eggs.
 Very little needed.

Fish sauce & shrimp paste?

HOW MUCH
MEAT?
Beware of marketing, prejudice
Meat consumption linked to high
blood pressure, heart disease,
cancer, diabetes, obesity.
Healthy bones need calcium, but
not clear that milk will help.
World Cancer Research Fund
recommends max 500 grams red
or processed meat / week.
NOT ALL
VEGETARIAN DIETS
ARE THE SAME
Good: Whole grains, fresh
fruits and vegetables, nuts,
legumes, olive oil
Bad: Sweetened beverages,
refined grains (eg. white
bread), fries, processed food
NOT ENOUGH ENERGY?
Diet planning and variety important.
Scott Jurek (41) ran the
Appalachian Trail (3523km) in 46
days.
Tennis champions
Venus and Serena Williams.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC
HEALTH
Zoonotic diseases: SARS, chicken flu,
salmonella, mad cow, Ebola, COVID
Overuse of antibiotics in animal farming and
aquaculture leads to drug-resistant bacteria.
Medicine risks “going back to the dark ages”.
(WHO)
Nitrogen from ammonia and nitrogen oxide
threaten urban population.
 Water Greenhouse
Less Soil
consumptio gas emission
efficient degradation,
n and (60% of food
food deforestation
pollution production)
production
POINTS TO PONDER
Most arguments in support of eating meat are problematic.
Even if eating meat is fine, factory farming might not be.
Meat is not essential for survival and health.
Adverse impact on public health and the environment.
There are many good reasons for eating less meat.
BOOKS YOU CAN READ
REMINDERS
Watch online video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko

Problem set #1