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...

Is Adult Incest Wrong?

An version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , March-April, Vol. 151 (2015)   Incest is something most people find morally objectionable and it's one of the most common of all cultural taboos. The British Medical Association’s Complete Family Health Encyclopaedia (1990) defines incest as “ intercourse between close relatives,” that usually includes “intercourse with a parent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, an uncle or aunt, a nephew or niece, a grandparent or grandchild.” The Oxford English Dictionary ’s definition is a little broader: it doesn’t confine incest to just intercourse, but to “sexual relations between people classified as being too closely related to marry each other.”    Most countries have some kind of law against incest—though consensual adult incest is not a crime in France, Spain, Russia the Netherlands, and a host of countries in South America. In England and Wales, however, t he Sexual Offences Act 2003 ...

A Critique of Abortion and Infanticide

Not many ethical issues are as vigorously fought over as abortion these days.  Unsurprisingly, the standpoint of the different sides—put simply, those who are in favour of abortion and those that are against it—have not achieved much in shifting the beliefs of their opponents. Abortion was illegal in almost all western states until the late 1960s; in 1967 Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) changed its laws to permit abortion on broad social grounds. In the  Row v Wade  1973 case, the United States Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to abortion in the first six months of pregnancy. Many other western nations like France and Italy have subsequently liberated their abortion laws. Ireland and Northern Ireland, however, have held out in opposition to this movement. Abortion in Ireland remains illegal under the 1861 Offences against the Person Act and in 1983 an amendment to Ireland's constitution states that an embryo, from the p...