ripping apart the omnivore's argument

Thinkhttp://journals.cambridge.org/THI

Additional services for Think:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

RIPPING APART THE OMNIVORE'SARGUMENT

Floris Van Den Berg

Think / Volume 13 / Issue 37 / June 2014, pp 23 - 26DOI: 10.1017/S1477175613000432, Published online: 17 March 2014

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1477175613000432

How to cite this article:Floris Van Den Berg (2014). RIPPING APART THE OMNIVORE'SARGUMENT . Think, 13, pp 23-26 doi:10.1017/S1477175613000432

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/THI, IP address: 150.216.68.200 on 10 Jun 2014

http://journals.cambridge.orgDownloaded: 10 Jun 2014 IP address: 150.216.68.200

RIPPING APART THE OMNIVORE’S ARGUMENT1

Floris Van Den Berg

People often say that humans are omnivores inorder to justify eating meat as normal and veganismas abnormal. The ‘Omnivore’s Argument’ is one ofthe arguments that vegetarians and vegans encounterwhen meat-eaters try to defend the moral acceptabilityof body parts on their plate. When responding to thisargument, the position of the vegan is similar to theatheist who time and again is confronted withthe same fallacious arguments in support of theexistence of god(s). Veganism and atheism are bothethical default positions. Similarly, not killing otherpeople is also a default position.

People often say that humans are omnivores in order tojustify eating meat as normal and vegetarianism as abnor-mal. The ‘Omnivore’s Argument’ is one of the argumentsthat vegetarians and vegans encounter when meat-eaterstry to defend the moral acceptability of their lifestyle choice.When responding to this argument, the position of thevegan is similar to the atheist who time and again is con-fronted with the same fallacious arguments in support ofthe existence of god(s). I am aware that it is completely invain to attempt a refutation of these arguments, but, as aphilosopher, I have devoted my life to rational arguments.Another similarity between atheists and vegans is that theburden of proof is logically on the other side: those whoclaim that there is a god have to adduce supporting evi-dence and those who claim it is moral to use nonhumananimals – the meat eaters – have to provide rational argu-ments in favour of including body parts on their plates.Veganism and atheism are both ethical default positions.

doi:10.1017/S1477175613000432 # The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 2014

Think 37, Vol. 13 (Summer 2014)

ThinkSu

mm

er

2014†

23

http://journals.cambridge.org


Similarly, not killing other people is also a default position.If you kill your neighbour, you are obliged to produce a verygood argument (e.g. ‘it was an accident’, or ‘it was self-defence’). If these arguments are unconvincing, you end upin jail (presupposing a morally just society). But, in the realworld, the burden of proof has been shifted, because oftwo reasons. Firstly, the historical argument: people havealways believed in god/ eating meat. Secondly, the com-monality argument: many people believe in god/manypeople eat meat. Both arguments are logical fallacies,which becomes clear by providing one counterexample:during most of human history slavery was common andmost people did not see it as a moral evil, including Platoand Jesus.

There are, I think, four sub-arguments of the Omnivore’sArgument: 1) ‘It is natural’, 2) ‘It is normal’, 3) ‘The veganlion’, and 4) ‘It is healthy’.

Let’s start with the first: ‘Meat eating is natural.’ It ispointed out that humans have evolved into omnivores –this is supported by our canine teeth and the structure ofour intestines. But, take a look at a close relative of Homosapiens, the gorilla. Gorillas have huge canines andprosper on an herbivorous diet. Teeth do not always givean accurate description of food consumption habits.Chimpanzees, other close evolutionary relatives of humans,predominantly eat leaves and fruit, and only occasionallyeat meat, if they can lay their hands on it. Homo sapiens isan omnivore; which means we can live and thrive on awide range of food patterns (except the modern westernobesogenic diet). A large part of the human population stilldoes not eat meat, and certainly not daily. There is no bio-logical necessity to eat meat. Meat eating might be natural,but the way modern meat products are processed (i.e.factory farming) is certainly not natural. Another line todefeat the ‘it’s natural’-line of argument is to point out aplethora of things that are very hard to define as natural,but which most meat eaters nevertheless do. Take, forexample, brushing one’s teeth. That is profoundly

Va

nD

en

Berg

Rip

pin

gA

pa

rtth

eO

mn

ivo

re’s

Arg

um

en

t†

24



unnatural. Most people in the history of humankind, and noanimal, brushes its teeth, let alone with a brush and tooth-paste. Or, if the meat eater is a biologist who comes upwith examples of carnivorous crocodiles that have theirteeth cleaned by helpful little birds, medicine. Modern medi-cine is the result of centuries of non-natural laboratoryresearch and industrial processes – and still, meat eatersdon’t abstain from modern medicine because they find itunnatural. The same argument applies to such ‘unnatural’activities as cutting our hair, using contraceptives andcooking our food (including meat).

‘It’s normal to eat meat.’ Yes, indeed, it is. Most peopleeat or want to consume animal products. The consumptionof animal products increased immensely within the past fewdecades, as has the practice of factory farming. However,again the example of slavery shows what humanity consid-ers normal at one stage of societal development can dras-tically evolve. Normal, or socially accepted, does notautomatically connote moral goodness. The task of moralphilosophers should be to find moral blind spots in society,and to try to overcome them. Anthropologists, sociologists,historians and archaeologists tell us that warfare is naturalfor humans. Humans (men, to be precise) always went towar. Killing and raping outsiders is undeniably ‘normal’based on historical evidence. But does that make it good?This is an example of David Hume’s renowned is/ought dis-tinction: it is not possible to draw a logical conclusion froma state of affairs (‘rape exists in all cultures in all times’)that this practice is morally good (‘rape is good’).Philosophers ponder about what is good and what argu-ments can support it (e.g. good is that which does notharm others and thereby contributes to the happiness of allconcerned).

‘If it’s wrong to kill animals, should lions and other preda-tors stop eating other animals too?’ It will likely be impos-sible to convert a lion into a vegan, even in captivity,because the lion is not an omnivore, but rather a carnivore,which limits its dietary range. But what does this have to do

ThinkSu

mm

er

2014†

25



with what humans eat? Ethics is limited to humans andother sentient creatures capable of moral deliberation, likeintelligent aliens (if they exist). Simply put, moral agentswho have the ability to deliberate on their actions have amoral duty to do so. We can choose how we treat animalsin farms. What wild animals do or do not do is outside therange of ethics. But most importantly, what others (includinglions) do does not affect how we ought to behave. If mostpeople would own slaves, it would still be immoral for eachof us to enslave others.

‘Humans need to consume meat and other animal pro-ducts to be healthy.’ This argument never gets off theground because it is the weakest. According to theAmerican Dietetic Association, carefully planned vegandiets are healthful and nutritionally sufficient for individualsof all ages, including pregnant women, children, adoles-cents and athletes. There are vegan Olympians (includingmultiple gold medallist Carl Lewis), bodybuilders and triath-letes. However, most significantly, the majority of theworld’s population lives on either vegetarian or vegan diets.If anything is clear, it is that we do not need to consumeanimal products in order to maintain our health. So, KO inthe first round for the vegans. Time for some morevegetables.

Note1

Thanks to Erroll Treslan and Annemarieke Otten forcomments.

Floris van den Berg teaches environmental ethics atUtrecht University. [email protected]

Va

nD

en

Berg

Rip

pin

gA

pa

rtth

eO

mn

ivo

re’s

Arg

um

en

t†

26

mailto:[email protected]


ripping apart the omnivore's argument

Documents