Mapping the world's opinions

(1 of 2 Positions) Next >>

It is ethical for us to eat meat as we are secondary consumers

It is only natural fork us to eat meat as we are 'secondary consumers'.

<< Previous (4 of 5 Arguments) Next >>


Enter the background of the argument here ...

The Argument

We hold a specific position in the food chains we are part of, as secondary consumers we eat other animals and in this way we maintain the balance needed in the food chain. Eating meat is a natural process for humans. All that is natural must surely be ethical by default as it is 'what is meant to be'. Therefore eating meat is justified. For more than 60,000 years humans have eaten and hunted meat, eating meat is a natural process that we as omnivores are supposed to carry out. Cooking meat actually proved to be a huge factor that lead to further human evolution - studies show that it caused a significant increase in our brain size.

Counter arguments

Just because something is natural it does not mean it is ethical and that we should still do it. We cannot look to nature for moral advice as nature can be wrong and twisted in our human perception of what is moral. Even if one were to accept that all that is natural is therefore ethical one can argue that; It is not natural as we are primates. Of the 633 species of primates humans are the only ones who eat meat (chimpanzees too on occasion). Eating meat was an evolutionary fault rather than a natural process of evolution. Furthermore, while other animals eat each other as they need to for survival, humans eat animals not out of necessity but merely because they want to. That is wrong


Enter the formal premises of the argument here ...

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...


Content references here ...


Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Explore related arguments

This page was last edited on Friday, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:34 UTC