Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"Meat tastes good."
the pleasure of taste is real, but it's a small interest set against the greatest interest of another being: to stay alive and not suffer. In no other context do we accept that someone's taste justifies killing. And the pleasure of eating doesn't depend on the animal: taste is largely learned, and much of what makes meat tasty comes from preparation, salt, fat and seasoning.
Root chapter: one of the three roots where conversations end, along with A10 and E12
Note: although it sits in Part IND, this is one of the frankest arguments in the catalog. It claims neither necessity nor impossibility: it admits the reason is pleasure.
Short answer
No one doubts that meat tastes good to people who like it. The question is whether that pleasure justifies someone's death. On one side is the taste of a meal; on the other, an animal's whole life. In no other context do we accept that someone's taste justifies killing: no one would defend eating dogs because their meat is tasty. And the pleasure doesn't depend on the animal: taste adapts, and seasoning, salt and fat are in plant food too.
For children
Imagine you love a toy, but to play with it someone has to get hurt. Would it be right to play anyway, just because it's fun? Most people would say no. Liking something is good, but it doesn't let us hurt others. And we can discover tasty new foods that don't hurt anyone.
"If dog meat were the tastiest in the world, would that make eating it acceptable?"
Como pode aparecer
"Meat is just too good."
"Bacon is too good."
"I can't live without cheese."
"Steak is sacred."
"Whatever the argument, I'm sticking with my barbecue."
"And what am I going to live on, just salad?" (which is J10)
"Life's too short to give up what I like."
"Gustatory pleasure has value and must be weighed against the cost to animals."
"I know it's wrong, but I like it too much to stop." (which is E12)
The strongest version
"I know, but meat is just too good. I can't live without a barbecue."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Pleasure is a real good, and a good life includes pleasures, among them those of food.
- P2Eating meat gives a pleasure that, for many people, no substitute offers in the same way.
- P3Giving up an important pleasure is a legitimate cost, which should go on the moral scales.
- CSo the pleasure of eating meat is a valid reason to keep eating it.
P1 and P3 are true: no one needs to give up pleasures for no reason, and the cost of changing exists. The problem lies in what is put on the other side of the scales.
The argument is valid only in the form "pleasure is a reason". It fails when the conclusion is "pleasure is a sufficient reason", because the scales have two sides and the other side is someone's whole life.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument is honest, and that's a virtue: it doesn't pretend there's a necessity. But it lays out clearly what's on the scales.
Side of the scales What weighs Whoever eats The difference in pleasure between a meal with meat and a meal without The animal Their whole life, freedom from suffering and all the experiences they'd still have The principle of equal consideration of interests, formulated by Peter Singer, says that similar interests should carry similar weight, and that a lesser interest shouldn't prevail over a greater one just because it belongs to someone of our species. Here, a trivial interest on one side is set against a vital interest on the other.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Pleasure doesn't justify harm in any other context.
No one accepts "I did it because I enjoy it" as a justification for hurting a dog, for cockfighting or for any harm to humans. The criterion is only accepted when the victim is a farmed animal.
2. The disproportion is enormous.
The difference in pleasure between one meal and another is small and fleeting. On the other side are an animal's whole life and, in practice, the suffering of an animal raised on an industrial scale. Even those who assign animals less value would struggle to make that calculation add up.
3. Taste is learned.
Food preferences form through experience and repeated exposure, especially in childhood, and they change over time. Many people who stop eating meat report that the craving fades. The pleasure that seems irreplaceable is largely a habit.
4. The pleasure doesn't come only from the animal.
Much of the flavor associated with meat comes from salt, fat, smoking, caramelization and seasoning, all available in plant dishes. There are also alternatives that imitate texture and flavor, and the plant cooking of many cultures is old and rich (J10).
5. The argument concedes the moral point.
People who say "it tastes good" rarely say "there's nothing wrong with it". By appealing to pleasure, they admit there's no other reason. That's why J11 is one of the roots of the connections map: it's where the conversation arrives when the other justifications fall.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Piazza et al., 2015, *Appetite* "Nice" is one of the four most common justifications for eating meat, and together they cover 83% to 91% of the justifications given Six studies Birch, 1999, *Annual Review of Nutrition* Food preferences form through the interaction of predispositions and eating experience, especially in the early years Checked from the abstract and bibliographic records Singer, *Animal Liberation* (1975)) The principle of equal consideration of interests The book that popularized the term "speciesism" - d
The strongest counter-reply: small pleasures add up to a good life
The most serious version doesn't say the pleasure of a meal is worth more than a life. It says the pleasures of food are an important part of a good life, tied to affection, culture and company, and that asking someone to give them up is asking a lot. Besides, one person's purchase doesn't directly kill a specific animal (K1, K2), so the scales wouldn't be a life against a meal.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Company doesn't depend on the animal.
Affection, culture and gatherings carry on with a different menu (D8). What's lost is an ingredient, not social life.
Added up, the animals add up too.
If meals accumulate over a life, so do the animals eaten: one person eats hundreds or thousands of animals over a lifetime.
The causal objection has an answer.
Even without directly killing a specific animal, each purchase has an expected effect on how many animals are raised and killed, as chapter K1 shows.
"Asking a lot" speaks to difficulty, not justice.
Difficulty may explain why someone hasn't changed yet. It doesn't make what's done to the animal fair.
- f
Back to the moral question
This is one of the three points where conversations usually end, because it admits the essential: what's left is pleasure. The moral question becomes sharp: does the pleasure of a flavor, which can largely be recreated with plants, outweigh the whole life of an animal who feels?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Insufficient reason
Changing the question
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Overestimating the irreplaceable
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Disproportion of interests
Double standard
Biases
Rationalization through the 4Ns
"Nice" is one of the four most common justifications
Meat paradox
Eating meat leads to attributing less mind and less moral status to the animal
Temporal discounting
Immediate pleasure weighs more than distant consequences
General literature on temporal discounting
Loss aversion and the endowment effect
The flavor one already has is worth more than the flavors one would gain
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "the pleasure of whoever consumes justifies the harm to whoever is consumed".
If it applied to…Dog meatTap to see
It would be acceptable if tasty
Almost no one in the West accepts this
If it applied to…Dogfighting and cockfightingTap to see
They'd be justified by the spectators' pleasure
Banned in many countries
If it applied to…Hunting for sportTap to see
The pleasure of the hunt would be enough
Many people who eat meat condemn it
If it applied to…Harm to humansTap to see
Someone's pleasure would justify harming another
No ethics accepts this
Contradictions
The same person would condemn someone who hurts an animal "because they enjoy it".
Flavor stops mattering when the species changes.
Almost everyone has come to like foods they disliked as children, and stopped liking others.
Diets and restrictions for health or appearance show pleasure isn't untouchable.
If nothing were wrong, there'd be no need to say "but it tastes good".
What the argument gets right
What is true
The argument has an honesty many others lack: it doesn't invent a necessity. And there's truth in it. The pleasure of food matters, is part of a good life and is tied to memories, culture and affection. Changing one's diet has real costs, and no one should pretend it's easy for everyone.
But
But precisely because it's frank, the argument shows where the question lies. If the only reason is pleasure, the question is whether the pleasure of a meal is worth someone's life. Almost everyone says no in every other case, and pleasure, unlike life, can be found on another plate.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Philosophy
- Animal Liberation.
Psychology and nutrition
- Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. *Appetite*, 91.
- Development of food preferences. *Annual Review of Nutrition*, 19.
- The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. *Appetite*, 55(1).
- Status quo bias in decision making. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 1(1).
- Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. *Journal of Political Economy*, 98(6).