#meateater

meateater! ⸻ a term for presenting one’s gender &/or identity through cannibalism!

symbol source (link)!

for anon!

I was very curious about the argument that morality is tied to our relationships with others. The prompt was "factory farming is one of the worst atrocities in history. "

Certainly a unique claim. A bold one certainly.

Looking through the lens of relationship morality, the argument isn't merely about pain or suffering in a vacuum, but rather a fundamental breakdown of the bond between humans and the natural world.

Evidently, Jack Symes comes off as a utilitarian; most would see his argument as such. Meat is bad because it creates pain. But what does it do to us when we treat a living being (a non-human) as a mere object?

Martin Buber discussed the "I-thou" vs "I-it" relationship.

I-thou -> you acknowledge the other as a unique, living thing.

I-it -> you view the other object as a tool, resource, or even a simple data point

I do believe that, as humans, most atrocities have been created by us. However, we have ALWAYS employed the "I-it" system across all species.

The Holocaust

Enslavement in America

The treatment of Latin@ by ICE, the racism towards Black people that is still pervasive today, East Asians being considered the "model minority", and the assumption that descent is the cause of COVID-19, the constant degradation of South Asians being labelled as 'ugly' or 'scammers.'

The list goes on.

We constantly co-op the "I-it" stance.

This leads to my next point about moral proximity: we generally feel more responsible for those with whom we are in a relationship. Going back to veganism/meat-eaters, for most of human history, if you ate an animal, you often were its hunter, thus some form of sombre connection.

I do think it is an atrocity, however. It is on a scale that is hard to wrap the mind around. Billions of sentient beings are killed annually, purely based on the number. The scale of confinement and slaughter is one to be noted, and it does exceed any other event in history. However, it is hard to make the comparison, seeing as we only have ~8 billion people on the planet. This is also intentional; it is a calculated, engineered system. The 'banality of evil' in agriculture, where no single person feels like a villain, yet the machine produces a horrific result.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way animals are treated"

Ultimately, I do think there is a point on both sides. But it is not unique to animal suffering. Every day, war impacts millions, whether directly or indirectly. This includes animals. I find it to be a frivolous endeavour to shame those whose cultural foods are meat (seen often towards the Inuit when they eat beluga or 'mutuk') or anyone who doesn't have the resources to afford vegan food.

I think it is easy to flatten the unique experiences of human suffering. This lies at the heart of the argument's teleology.

There is no ethical manner in which to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., because the right relationship between humans is total equality and autonomy, and thus, any degree of those behaviours is a deviation from moral truth. There is no such thing as humane oppression.

Being an apex predator isn't a moral error (as humans are); however, the right relationship is not mass slaughtering animals and using torture methods. The right method is humane. We can invest in regenerative farming, traditional farming or small-scale husbandry, where animals can live a natural life.