Skip to main content

Thoughts


Some thoughts on Ronan McGreevy’s Irish Times article





After reading Ronan McGreevy’s article in the Irish Times (22nd November 2013) I imagine he was deliberately making an effort to be provocative. If it was not for the immeasurable level of non-human animal cruelty and suffering that occurs every day as a result of Ireland’s meat consumption, McGreevy’s feature might have been more amusing.  It is surprising, and indeed disappointing, that the Irish Times would consider printing a piece as uninformed, misleading and compassionless as this.  

A meat-free diet is practiced for a number of reasons—ethical, health, religious and cultural—and contrary to McGreevy’s depiction of vegetarians simply having a “misplaced sentiment towards farm animals,” many have reflected on the problem of eating animal flesh on the basis of moral reasoning. Writers such as Montaigne and Erasmus criticised the abuse of animals in butchery and Leonardo da Vinci himself was a vegetarian. In the 19th century, scholars like Jeremy Bentham and Arthur Schopenhauer both held that our moral concerns ought to expand so to include animals. Since the 1970s various philosophers and animal rights activists have argued that our moral reasoning point towards a vegetarian diet (at least).  In this way, our moral circle that includes the consideration of family, tribe, nation and species, ought to be extended to take into account the interest of all sentient beings.

Fortunately western culture has seen a rising intolerance of violence towards non-human animals over the past 50 years, and it’s not improbable that a future society will regard our present consumption of animal flesh as morally troubling as we now view slavery, the subjection of women, racial apartheid and corporeal punishment of children.

McGreevy offers a number of ridiculous arguments counter to vegetarianism. Firstly, he states that it’s “a wholly unnatural state.” But what moral relevance does unnaturalness have in any case? Almost all modern agricultural production impedes nature in some way. In any case, the captivity and butchery of sentient beings in factory farmed houses, where most meat is produced worldwide, is not everyone’s idea of natural either. 

He goes on to say that eating meat is central to our culture. No doubt this is true; meat has been a central part of our national diet for a long time. However, just because some custom is part of a culture doesn't make it morally defensible. Ireland has a culture of impunity of corrupt bankers, but that does not morally excuse the continuation of embezzlement or insider trading.

Many are vegetarian for other reasons that McGreevy also fails to consider. A vegetarian diet is better for the environment. Meat production is deemed to be one of the main contributors to global warming, loss of biodiversity and fresh water scarcity. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Livestock’s Long Shadow report estimates that current meat production causes 19% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.  A more recent study, though, puts this figure as high as 51%.

Many consider a vegetarian diet to be healthier than a meat based one. Studies have shown that vegetarians are less likely to be obese. In light of a recent report that predicts a very high quantity of people living in Ireland are expected to be overweight or obese by 2030, this might be a good time for one to contemplate a vegetarian diet. Additionally, the results of a major 28 year study published in Archives of Internal Medicine last year, suggest that eating red meat significantly increases the risk of death from heart disease and cancer.

Finally, McGreevy seems to imply that vegetarian food is boring and bland—that is, “something faintly edible.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Many vegetarians will confirm that turning away from their earlier diet gave them the opportunity to explore diverse and interesting recipes that they wouldn't have discerned otherwise. If McGreevy isn't convinced, there are several restaurants around with quality vegetarian and vegan food options for him to think again.    



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should We Use Neuroenhancement Drugs to Improve Relationships?

A version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , July-August, Vol. 147 (2014)   L ove, it is fair to say, is probably the strongest emotion we can experience. It can come in many different forms:  love of one’s parent, sibling, or child. Though most people consider romantic relationships—which include companionship, sexual passion, intimacy, warmth, procreation and child-rearing—as the most significant component of one’s life; and it is probably the thing we find discussed more than anything else in novels, films and music. Committed romantic relationships tend to occur within the institution of marriage—something that is ubiquitous to most, if not all, cultures.   Indeed, relationships today, which are primarily love-driven, are not just confined to marriages, as many couples sustain relationships outside of wedlock. Being in a love-driven relationship is considered important for most people, as it contributes to happiness—something we a...

Should we repeal the Eighth Amendment?

Ireland will have a referendum on whether abortion should be permitted on 25th May. A referendum has to be held in order to alter the constitution. In 1983 voters approved of the Eighth Amendment – which created a constitutional recognition that gives equal status to the unborn and the mother – but requests to have it repealed have been steadily increasing in the past number years. In January, the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar,  said   Ireland’s abortion laws are “too restrictive and need to be reformed”. If the amendment is repealed, the government may introduce legislation permitting unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. At present, terminations are only permissible when the life of the mother is at risk, and under law anyone who seeks an abortion could potentially face 14 years in prison. Opponents of abortion, to be sure, see this as a moral horror, but the 12-week limit being proposed is fairly similar   to abortion laws across Europe. Abort...

Intuitions and Ethics

A version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , May-June, Vol. 146 (2014) The notion that our moral intuitions possess epistemic authority has been associated with a number of philosophers within the canon of Western thought.  Roughly speaking, these thinkers have argued that our intuitions have recourse to a unique authority of perception that yields special access to a sphere of moral legitimacy. Others, however, have claimed that our intuitions are incredibly diverse and often conflict with each other—for example, your intuition says assisted suicide is morally permissible and my intuition says it’s wrong. But it seems the two contrasting intuitions cannot both be right. At the same time, most of us think our own moral intuitions are right : they do not seem inconsistent to us, and we have a strong sense to believe them. Accordingly, they strike us as correct. Undoubtedly, moral intuitions can be shaped by our particular culture, environment or co...