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.

Q&A 4, Answer

My question is: Is eating meat in and of itself problematic? If people developed a way to produce meat artificially, without killing animals, could they morally consume it?

My first impulse in regards to this question is to say 'no.'  Laboratory-grown meat, such as scientists have just begun to produce, is no more sentient than plants or fungi, and as such eating it is not ethically problematic.  However, I wonder about the residual association of meat with violence; since most humans have grown up eating meat gathered from the corpses of slaughtered animals, they might continue to connect the substance to the original source, thus leading to the generalised violence of nature which some philosophers have argued is the greatest argument against harming animals.

That said, even if meat does continue to link up with violence in people's minds, laboratory-grown meat may be the best choice out of grim options.  It is highly unlikely, I believe, that all of humanity will adopt vegetarianism (combined with ethical treatment of cows, chickens, and other produce-creating animals) or veganism (in the absence of the above).  Humans tend to dislike having to give up something they enjoy, even for a good cause; it is one reason why forward-thinking environmentalist movements usually focus on renewable energy, rather than the cessation of technology use.  Even the most grill-obsessed omnivore might adopt an ethical diet if said diet contained all the meaty delights they knew and loved.  Hopefully, with time, the negative associations of meat-eating would disappear.