New York Times: Is It Ethical to Eat Meat?

We’re not sure why they are doing it now — after all, when it comes to animal agriculture the New York Times has assuredly earned their anti-meat industry stripes — but they’ve decided to run an essay contest on, “…whether it is right to eat animals in the first place…,” 600 words, due by April 8, e-mailed to, get this,

Okay…who knew the New York Times had an ethicist?  Not that we question their need for one.  After all, about the only time we can recall paying much attention to the Times was when they had to fire that reporter whom they finally discovered was not reporting but for years was making up stories as he went along.  Then they avidly followed Michael Pollan’s attempts to smear every farmer and rancher who operated on more than a few dozen acres and utilized more technology than a pitchfork.  Ethics?  What ethics?  What did they run to tell the other side of Pollan’s antics?

In fact, we might begin our argument with the position that their assumptions are false to begin with.  Eating meat is not a question that has anything to do with ethics.  Proper care and husbandry of animals has to do with ethics.  What you eat for dinner does not — unless you really are a cannibal.  The very fact that those who believe in vegetarianism have to roam far afield to environmental, nutrition, legal and earth karma notions (mostly based on fallacies or emotional turmoil) to attempt to justify their positions, is illustrative of the difficulties in fighting nature’s way.

We’ll help you out as you begin pondering your essay.  The dictionary refers to ethics as dealing with, “moral principles,” “that branch of philosophy dealing with values,”  and dealing with right and wrong.  It is part of the vegetarian’s strategy to pose meat-eating as a moral issue when we believe it is not at all.  In fact, it is somewhat ironic that the strata of society which often casts aspersions at Christian religions, indeed, at most religions, regards most questions of morality short of murder as grey areas and cringes at words like right and wrong or good and evil, should trot out morality and ethics as having a bearing on eating meat.

We also wonder what the Times editors read.  They mention animal activists like Peter Singer and another vegetarian book immediately and claim vegetarians have “dominated the discussion about the ethics of eating” but then opine that, “those who love meat have had surprisingly little to say.”  We’ve had plenty to say, it just hasn’t been printed in the Times.  And, of course, it is revealing that the Times and their “ethicist” quickly cite HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle’s philosophy about people making an ethical decision whenever they eat . 

Anyway, just so you know what the Times is doing — even if you’re not sure what they have up their sleeves — here’s your chance to ponder and write.

Click here to see New York Times story.

Published in: on March 20, 2012 at 11:34 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: