We Are Not Lions
Print This Post
In an attempt to defend meat-eating, there are those who say it’s perfectly natural for us to kill and consume other animals, and since we’re at the top of the food chain, everything and anything (or anyone) is on the menu.
These people often cite lions, tigers and bears (oh my) to back up their beliefs that humans are supposed to eat flesh, because other animals eat flesh. I can see where they’re coming from because I thought the very same thing when I was very young.
“Bears are omnivores and so are we,” I once told my then vegetarian sister. “Get the bears to stop eating meat and I’ll stop eating meat.” I thought I was so clever!
Lions kill antelopes, wolves kill deer and bears kill fish. They’re animals and we’re animals. So what’s the big deal? What’s the difference?
The difference is we are not lions, wolves or bears. We’re human beings: a different kind of animal; a MORAL animal. Lions and other carnivores don’t have morals, nor do they have a choice. If they don’t kill other animals they’ll die. They can’t survive on fruits, grains and vegetables. It’s the same for omnivores. But we can. We have other options.
Maybe once, a long time ago, we had to eat animals to survive (humans also ate other humans NOT so long ago) but we’ve learned so much since then. Today we work with lasers, communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet and send robots to other planets. We’re in the 21st century now, not the Stone Age. We don’t need to eat animals anymore.
Some readers might say: “Yes, but we’re omnivores too!” Are we? I’m not so sure. Our physiology seems to indicate we are not, and the health implications (not to mention the environmental consequences) of consuming animal products suggest it would be wiser for all of us if we gave up meat.
And just because we can do something, like eating someone else’s flesh, doesn’t mean we should. Our bodies can also handle cocaine, heroine and crystal meth in moderate amounts, but I don’t know anyone promoting widespread psychoactive drug use.
So meat advocates can use predators to try and make their meat-eating arguments if they like but I’m more inspired by the gorillas, elephants and rhinoceroses. These amazing animals are just as strong as lions (if not stronger) and they’re all vegans. They manage to survive without killing and eating the bodies of other animals and they do just fine.
But I don’t object to predatory animals killing other animals (even though I feel bad for the victims) because, as I wrote earlier, they have no choice; it’s either do or die. Humans on the other hand do have a choice. And that’s what it all comes down to: a moral choice.
We know that killing, unless absolutely necessary, is wrong. We also know that causing unnecessary suffering to others is cruel. That’s why we have laws. If we didn’t, society couldn’t function. So we’re taught from an early age about right and wrong, do unto others, and so on for the betterment of society and the good of its members.
We’re praised when we perform acts of kindness and punished when we commit acts of violence. We’re also encouraged to work together to strengthen our communities, protect the weak and vulnerable, and help the sick and elderly. We don’t live by the law of the jungle because we don’t live in the jungle.
We can’t be part of a moral community, and reap the benefits of that community on one hand, and then justify killing and eating animals “because other animals do it.” There are no rules in nature; it’s survival of the fittest. But WE don’t live like that. If we did, there would be no law enforcement agencies, no hospitals, no charitable organizations, no social services, no mercy and no compassion.
If you want to reject civilized society and all its rules, living “red in claw and tooth” and killing what you eat go right ahead. But leave behind all the protections and benefits that come from living in a civilized society, including all those fancy gadgets. Wild animals don’t have cars, kerosene generators or high-powered rifles and neither should you.
Either we live like human beings, and accept all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, or we live like animals. It’s one or the other. We can’t have it both ways.
I’m curious about why you say that our physiology seems to indicate that we’re not omnivores. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge proponent of the healthfulness and moral rightness of meatless diets. It’s very clear in the scientific literature that people who eat little or no animal products experience marked health benefits. But based on my understanding of our physiology, features like our teeth, digestive tracts, and metabolic processes seem to indicate that we’ve evolved as omnivores. Is there evidence to the contrary I don’t know about?
HI Kayla,
My opinion on the matter is that humans are capable of eating meat, but our bodies are more similar to herbivores than to true omnivores or carnivores. Humans evolved to eat meat, but only when other food sources were scarce. When plants are plentiful, we can and should eat plants.
An appeal to nature is inherently fallacious and you have some good rebuttals there but please, please, please avoid similar fallacies and exaggerations like:
“These amazing animals are just as strong as lions (if not stronger) and they’re all vegans.”
Two fallacies do not make you right but could serve to illustrate the original flawed argument.
“Some readers might say: “Yes, but we’re omnivores too!” Are we? I’m not so sure”
Scientific evidence supports humans as omnivores. As far as we know though in today’s society we can thrive eating only plants.
“Either we live like human beings, and accept all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, or we live like animals. It’s one or the other.”
That’s a false dichotomy which used as your closing argument weakens your whole point.
You could have saved alotta time by saying in response to “But what about lions?”: “We are not lions.” But to drive the point home I’d avoid typical fallacious trappings commonly employed by many vegan advocates.
I can’t speak for all but I know I am not an omnivore. Never in my life have I had *any* desire to bite into, attack, kill an animal and eat it’s flesh. Never! All I’ve wanted to do is observe them or hug them! Also, my dogs are intrigued with flesh food found on the ground…ie. “road kill” I am not. It’s repulsive and would make me sick.
*********
When others are arguing over how much of omnivore’s we are I always tell them the animals we eat are gentle and would never harm us. Maybe if we ate predators it would jive with their arguments but we dont’. The animals we eat do not harm us and do not wish us harm so for us to use and abuse them so horribly is really a mistake. A big awful moral mistake.
Kayla!
Thanks for your comments and question. I agree with Elaine that we evolved to eat meat, but that it’s not “natural” for us to do so. We chew our food in a round, grinding manner; carnivores and omnivores don’t chew, but rather swallow it whole. We don’t have flesh-tearing teeth or claws either.
Also, meat consumption has been linked to various diseases that carnivores and omnivores simply don’t get, because it’s natural for them, but not for us.
An excellent piece on the subject can be found at: http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2003-wi-meat.html
Happy reading!
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..We are not lions =-.
Kristina!
I totally agree. I’ve heard that if you put a bunny in a playpen with a toddler, the child won’t instinctively kill and eat the rabbit. Some say this proves we aren’t natural-born meat-eaters.
Thanks for your input.
Dan
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..We are not lions =-.
Dear Vegan Chicago,
You have a right to your opinion, even though I disagree with it. You’ve attacked my writings before, with the same kind of hostility as you’ve done here. You claim my points are fallacious, but you don’t explain how they’re fallacious.
You seem to be very argumentative, but not very helpful in the discussion. You tell me I should say this and not say that. Hey, you’re so smart! Why don’t you write something and submit it, instead of criticizing my stuff?
It seems that if I wrote that the sky is blue, you’d attack and insult that too! Keep in mind that I don’t get paid for this. I do it because I want people to learn about veganism and live more compassionately.
I also want to help vegans feel more comfortable with their lifestyle choice and be able to confidently stand up to criticisms and bullying from non-vegans. But whether my writings are aimed at vegans or non-vegans, I always try to show respect. You have every right to disagree with me, but I ask you to please do it respectfully.
If you are vegan, and not some anti-animal rights mole trying to stir things up on a vegan website, please try to be a little nicer in the future. Thanks!
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..We are not lions =-.
Daniel,
Awww I’m sorry you mistook my succinct post for vitriol. I assumed that you being a writer and vegan advocate you might have a bit of a thicker skin and some knowledge of the subjects. I didn’t realize your inexperience in these matters so I’ll try to cushion my points so you may better understand for a more constructive end. I don’t recall “attacking” your other posts but if I did so it was probably due to a similar nature.
The fallacies for which I refer are logical fallacies that have to do with incorrect reasoning. Look at this entry on Wikipedia for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
They are common failures of logic that render the original point moot and does not help the argument. It’s best we avoid these errors to be the best advocates we can be. As a writer and advocate it’s would be considered best practice to learn these well and avoid employing them. If we really want to empower other people who are vegan we would similarly give them this tool of reasoning. Nobody wants to carry a philosophy on a pack of lies and/or misinformation. Let us strive for truth and integrity in our advocacy efforts. If we are right we will prevail, if we are wrong no lie will help. I think we are pretty damn right and no cheap ploy is needed.
cheers,
dave @ Vegan Chicago
For those interested, a more expanded version of what All Creatures based their information on: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton Mills, M.D.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94656/The-Comparative-Anatomy-of-Eating
I think it’s clear we evolved as opportunistic omnivores… But I agree just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should”.
I suppose this is one of the most frustrating things to argue about with hunters – or meat eaters. On the one hand, they say it is a “primal” rite, that should apply to humans too. But on the other hand they will defend that “rite” because we are so “evolved” to be on top of the “food chain”.
The conflict of these two ideologies is obvious in man’s attempt to justify with: “a clean kill” or “humane slaughter”. Lions and bears of course, are only concerned with efficiency not with “suffering”. That modern man IS concerned with being “merciful” should be a clear indicator that we’re not lions – nor should we behave as such…
.-= Bea Elliott´s last blog ..Beef Babies Rank Higher than Dairy Babies – Cowboy Cruelty =-.
Daniel, nevermind Dave from Vegan Chicago. He’s clearly got an axe to grind and isn’t all the interested in true dialogue.
On the topic at hand, I have this to say:
Thanks EV! I don’t mind criticism, but this guy’s just rude and arrogant. And as I wrote, not very helpful.
Hey Dave, so now I’m lying? Nice. But you still didn’t answer my question. What’s fallacious about my post?
Seems all you can do is insult. How’s that working for you? Do you address non-vegans with the same sarcasm and insolence? I certainly hope not.
There’s this book called “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. My advice: read it.
.-= Daniel´s last blog ..We are not lions =-.
Daniel,
I don’t see in any way how Dave is being rude or arrogant. He, quite simply, is trying to make your writing more credible. Having flaws in your logic is a very big mistake; doing this makes the reader not believe you. Your audience here is all pro-vegan and already willing to accept almost any reasoning you have for being a vegan. However, if you were to bring this to any other audience (which should really be your goal) chances are you would end up converting very few people.
All Dave is doing is giving you critique and you’re getting butt hurt over it. Your writing is good, and you have some good ideas, but your logic flow is flawed. If you fix this your essay could be very solid and persuasive. Instead, you’ve made an essay that is supposed to be persuasive but puts down the reader for not being vegan/vegetarian and choosing to stay that way.
If Dave has “attacked” your other writings than perhaps you are continually making the same mistakes. Give Dave a chance and put thought into his advice. He could just be trying to help you.
I realize this reply is nearly a year late, but I just stumbled upon it.
-That One Lady
I just stumbled upon this article on Google. I think it neatly refutes the “we’re meant to eat meat” and “top of the food chain” arguments. Pointing out the hypocrisy of those who appeal to the animal kingdom in order to justify the killing and eating of non-human animals but do not use it as a guide for any other aspect of modern human civilisation is certainly powerful.
I recently wrote a blog article that responds to what I consider to be the most challenging arguments against vegetarianism (e.g. “we are meant to eat meat”), which readers here might be interested in: http://mb27.blogspot.com/2011/09/reflecting-upon-arguments-against.html
I just stumbled upon this article and I respect the opinions within. I agree that comparing humans to other carnivores is a pathetic defense, at best. That is like that same question most of our mothers asked us when we were growing up, “If the other kids jumped off of a cliff would you do the same?” Of course, that falls under the category of “my oponion” and should bear no influence over anyone’s life, save mine. What do I know? I’m a simple person with simple beliefs. I do have some questions though. You state that humans are “moral animals.” Curiously, what is the source of these morals? Where does this morality come from?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy defines morality as, “normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.” I would never argue the rationality of a vegetarian. The article put forth a solid rationality for being vegetarian. I commend you for a well thought out argument. However, I would defend the rationality of those that do eat meat, and not call them irrational. Therefore, if all people are capable of being rational then we are all capable of being moral. However, it would be obvious that my morals are not the same as yours. Like everything else in life, it’s a choice.
Additionally, the same encyclopedia also noted that morality is also defined as, “descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion.” Who has the right morality? Does the religous person hold higher morals than the atheist? What if the religous person is a meat eater and the atheist is a vegetarian?
Many people base all the ways to live one’s life based on a religous background, whether they admit it or not. The golden rule, treat others as you would have them treat you, is written in almost all the worlds major religons. Thou shalt not kill. That is not simply a Christian belief. Quite to the contrary. This can be found in the Torah as well as the Korahn (sorry if I spelled that horribly). However, both the Torah and the Bible do the opposite of condeming the consumption of meat, it’s promoted. Therefore, I don’t believe being vegan/vegetarian is a choice of morality as stated. It’s simply a personal choice.
I realize that the Vegan Soapbox Discussion policy says I shouldn’t say anything pro-meat. I’m not promoting meat, I’m simply offering a rebuttal for consideration. I commend those that have resolved to be vegetarian/vegan. I’m proud of each and every one of them for standing behind their beliefs. That is their choice.
Jason, to the discussion, I submit:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html