In a recent article published in the Canberra Times, the author, Roland Miller McCall, argues that people should reduce meat consumption in their diets in an effort to reduce emissions and stop climate change. The Australian author states that meat is a very large part of a typical diet in his country and that there is now a large campaign being fronted by Sir Paul McCartney that encourages people to have Meat Free Mondays (2009). McCall proceeds in presenting several facts and statistics throughout his article. For instance, McCall (2009) states that 18% of global emissions are due to livestock production and “the greenhouse effect from methane is 23 times greater than carbon”.
With all of these facts and statistics, however, the ethical issues surrounding this action are not discussed in the article.
First of all, the demarcation problem must be addressed. The demarcation problem is establishing who or what matters morally to the author in the situation. There are several views that could be taken (anthropocentric, sentient, biocentric, holistic) and the author seems to take a sentient view with this argument. With this view, humans and sentient animals count morally.
A consequentialist’s, or utilitarian’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is based on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the actions. In other words, the consequentialist is concerned about the consequences of the actions they make. In regards to the change suggested in McCall’s argument, there are several consequences. One of the main consequences of people reducing the amount of meat they consume is a decrease in emissions caused by livestock because less livestock would not be required as much. In turn, this would slow down climate change. McCall states that the consumption of red-meat is strongly linked to cancer, heart disease and other diseases so a decrease in meat consumption could reduce the likelihood of being d with one of these often fatal illnesses (2009). Another consequence of consuming less meat would be a decrease in livestock population and this is not a good for these animals. High populations result in a more successful species. As well, a lack of meat in a person’s diet could result in iron deficiencies if not obtained from other sources. Iron is an essential nutrient so deficiencies can be quite harmful to a human and can lead to anaemia, fatigue, hair loss, and other health problems (Iron deficiency anemia, 2009). There are other dietary options in which a person who doesn’t eat meat, such as vegetarians, can obtain iron. These food sources include oatmeal and cereals, chickpeas, figs, bagels, beans, and many more (Sources of iron). In the end, the good consequences outweigh the bad so a consquentialist would see this as a good change.
A non-consequentialist’s, or deontolost’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on what is intrinsic to the action. The outcome of the situation or change is not important ethically to a non-consquentialist. In this case, a non-consequentialist would see humans and the livestock as morally important. Non-consequentialists also find rights of the intrinsic beings to be very important. In this case, they would see that the livestock have a right to live and not be slaughtered and eaten. At the same time, though, there are those who believe that humans have a right to eat whatever they want, namely meat. On top of this, future generations have a right to live in a world that was not destroyed by the current generation and climate change. As well, it is sometimes seen that non-consequentialists abide by the notion that all intrinsic beings should be treated in an equal manner. In this case, it is morally correct to reduce meat consumption.
All major changes in policy and the way we live carry ethical implications that can be assessed using many different points of view. Often, the views oppose one another. When it comes to eating less meat to reduce emissions, it seems as though there would be a consensus between consequentialists and non-consequentialists even though they view the situation with different priorities in mind. Overall, there may be a possible agreement in which both sides find it morally correct for humans to decrease meat consumption in an effort to reduce emissions.
References
2009. Iron deficiency anaemia. canada.com, [Online], <http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/condition_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&disease_id=274&page_no=1>, Accessed November 2009.
McCall, R.M. 2009. Save the planet – eat less meat. The Canberra Times, [Online], <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1>, Accessed November 2009.
Sources of iron. Capital Health, [Online], <http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eq3uez72ubprrsnmc354jslhl2witvfzygjaenfwveec3mdvsthukxuxbab2bflpiu6fmr6uumgni7nmeml3qfjwhth/SourcesofIron.pdf>, Accessed November 2009.
Overall, it seems that both the consequentialist and non-consequentialist point-of-views argue against the consumption of meat by humans. The reasons and evidence against meat consumption heavily outweigh the argument for meat consumption. Yet the majority of humans eat meat, not for lack of knowledge on the facts. The consequentialist and non-consequentialist views could also argue for the happiness of the majority and of individuals, people's or a person's decision to eat meat out of culture or simple preference. Even though these reasons seem small and unimportant compared to the arguments against meat consumption, obviously they carry a significant weight, considering the majority of us still consume meat.
ReplyDelete