Home / C. Nature, biology and evolution / Part DIR
"Lions eat other animals."
lions aren't moral agents and have no alternative. They don't deliberate, don't understand consequences and would die without hunting. We deliberate and have an alternative. We don't take our ethics from lions in anything else: they also kill the cubs of other males, and no one uses that as an example.
Short answer
The lion has no choice: it's an obligate carnivore, it doesn't deliberate and it would die without hunting. We can live well without eating animals and we understand what we do. That's why we don't judge the lion, and it's for the same reason that we can be judged. Besides, we don't copy the lion in anything else: male lions kill the cubs of other males, and no one draws a moral rule from that.
For children
The lion doesn't know there's another option. It doesn't go to the store, can't cook beans and needs to hunt to survive. You're different: you can choose what to eat and understand what happens to animals. No one gets angry at a baby who knocks over a cup, because the baby doesn't understand. It's the same with the lion: it doesn't choose. We do.
"In what other area of life do you use the lion as an example of what's right?"
Como pode aparecer
"Lions eat other animals."
"That's how nature works."
"Cats eat mice."
"Are you going to ask the lion to go vegan?"
"So is the lion a murderer?"
"Predation is part of the natural order we belong to."
"So should we stop lions from hunting?" (which is F3)
The strongest version
"That's how nature works. Are you going to ask the lion to go vegan?"
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Many animals kill and eat other animals.
- P2We don't morally condemn those animals for it.
- P3Humans are animals too.
- CSo there's no reason to condemn humans for eating animals.
The strong version draws on a real intuition: it would be strange to condemn a lion for hunting. The problem lies in P3, which treats the fact that we're animals as if it erased the difference that justifies not condemning the lion.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because the reason we don't condemn the lion, its lack of deliberation and of an alternative, doesn't apply to us.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The difference between the lion and the human isn't whether they are animals, but two capacities:
Capacity Lion Human Deliberating about one's own actions and their consequences No Yes Living well without killing animals No: it's an obligate carnivore Yes, for anyone with access to a varied diet These two capacities are exactly what make someone a moral agent. The lion is a moral patient, who can be harmed, but not an agent who can be held responsible (A7).
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. The lion can't choose.
It doesn't know alternatives exist, can't weigh consequences and wouldn't survive without hunting. Moral responsibility requires the capacity to choose.
2. We can.
Well-planned vegan diets are appropriate for humans at all stages of life, according to the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The condition that excuses the lion doesn't apply to us.
3. We don't copy the lion in anything else.
Male lions that take over a pride often kill the cubs of the previous males. No one draws permission for humans from that. Choosing to imitate the lion only in diet is convenient selection.
4. It's an appeal to nature.
The argument assumes that what happens in nature is a moral model, which chapter C1 shows to be false.
5. Lions don't confine or breed animals for slaughter.
Even the descriptive comparison fails: industrial animal farming looks nothing like predation.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2016 Well-planned vegan diets are appropriate at all stages of life Shows the lion's condition doesn't apply to humans Regan, *The Case for Animal Rights* (1983) Distinction between moral agents and moral patients Also used in A7 - d
The strongest counter-reply: we're natural predators
The most serious version doesn't say we should imitate the lion. It says that we, like the lion, are part of a chain of predation, and that meat is part of human history and biology. Asking us to stop eating animals would be asking us to stop being the kind of animal we are.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It turns into another argument.
Being able to do something doesn't oblige us to do it.
We're able to do many things we choose not to do.
Our history includes ethics too.
The capacity to question what we do is as much part of who we are as the capacity to eat meat.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to nature
False analogy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Convenient selection
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing agent and patient
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The lion example is used only where it excuses change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "what other animals do is allowed for us".
If it applied to…InfanticideTap to see
It would be allowed, because lions practice it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Violent territorial disputesTap to see
Killing intruders would be legitimate
Contradicts all of law
If it applied to…CannibalismTap to see
It would be acceptable, because it occurs in several species
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Not in violence, not in infanticide, not in social life.
None of that is what a lion would do.
Animal behavior is never a criterion on other matters.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The intuition that it makes no sense to condemn a lion for hunting is correct. It shows something important: moral responsibility depends on the capacity to choose and to understand. It's also true that we're animals and that our evolutionary history includes eating meat.
But
But it's precisely that intuition that brings the argument down. We don't condemn the lion because it can't choose. We can, and that's why the question applies to us.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- The Objection That Consuming Animals Is Natural Vol. IV, ch. 5
References
Nutrition
Philosophy
- The Case for Animal Rights.