Overseas Obligation

In response to Brian's post 'Q&A Five Question One' (3/3/2013):

At the end of the post I'm responding to, Brian posed the question of whether there are any common situations in which a human's higher moral status actually requires a difference in treatment between the human and a non-human animal.  While I agree that such situations are rare at, say, MCLA, in less developed or less wealthy areas of the world I think they can be quite common.

It is true that most humans can live quite well on a meat-free diet, but meat does provide some nutrients that are difficult to find elsewhere - for example, protein.  For people like MCLA students, it is relatively easy to find other sources of protein, like beans, nuts, soy, and some grains.  For people in many areas of the world, it is not nearly so simple.

In poor areas of America and other first-and-second-world countries, supermarkets are still readily available, and people might actually benefit economically from becoming vegetarians or vegans since rice and beans are far less expensive than meat.  In third world countries where the climate does not permit beans to grow, or where most people are not able to obtain the supplies necessary to grow beans (like beans to start off a garden, adequate sun, adequate soil, or even water) or other non-animal protein sources, meat may be one of or even the only source of protein readily available to humans.  In these cases, I think humans are morally justified in consuming meat and other animal products to sustain their own existences.