Assignment Four – On Chapter Eleven “Higher Laws”

“Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized” (Thoreau: 207f.).

This is a statement made by Thoreau, supporting his idea of humans not being in the position of eating animals. Contrasting the idea of humans killing humans for food, and humans killing animals for food, appears to be an argument that is purposely chosen to cause a stir. Yes, humans left off killing humans after they came in contact with the more civilized, which were humans as well. They communicated, had a similar way of being, same evolution and for these reasons they might have came to the thought of killing each other would not be morally appreciated in their communities; that were most likely to emerge and develop from humans with the same needs and characteristics, settling and inhabiting the same regions.

If they left off killing humans, why did they not left off killing animals. That appears to be a question that can be answered in a few sentences. Humans kill animals since decades ago. We are known to be hunters, to survive from nature, including animals. In other words, that it lays in the history of human evolution, that we use animals as part of our nutrition. To discuss the question of if that can be a universal moral ideal or not, one has to focus on todays population.
            People kill animals for the joy of hunting. It is a wide spread sport, also practiced by royals and politicians, who are role models for many people. If they shoot animals for the joy of killing, then how can you make it a universal moral ideal to not kill animals at all? However, hunters also kill to keep populations in balance, as natural enemies are decreasing. And, not to forget, they also kill, to eat the meat. What if they only ate the meat of animals that they had killed to help the population stay stable?

Todays communities are much more modern, with other options and different needs. We do not have to go on a hunt if we want to consume meat. We just need to drive to the next shop, chose between different brands, sorts and preferences and pay for it as we leave. Now, of course there are people who live vegetarian or vegan. But not only they are disgusted by the excessive offer of meat, as well as the origins and keeping conditions of this meat. The media is, in regular intervals, flooded by food scandals. It is to see, that more and more people are concerned about their consumption of meat. They start wondering where their food is from, how it was kept, and how it was fed. Supermarkets start stocking up on organic ranges, not only meat but also vegetables, bread, dairy and other groceries. This shows, that people start getting conscious about the treatment of animals, and the consumption of meat and other foods, that are part of their nutrition.
            As long as people consider animals as part of their nutrition, and as long as they make a difference between animals that are for the use of food, animals that are considered to be pets (no one in our society would ever come to the idea to start eating or selling dog or cat meat . . . and if so: here we go, the next food scandal is lining up!), and as long as people enjoy eating meet, because they do not consider these animals to be part of their society or communities, they will not stop the consumption.

If there is something that we can consider as a universal moral ideal, regarding the ethic of carnivorism, then this ideal is, that we do not eat the cheapest meat, and no meat from which we do not know where it is from, and how it was held and grown. We will not be able to make this ideal any more vegetarian friendly, as long as our society is filled with many individual human minds, with many different needs, tastes, cravings and own moral ideals.