Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"My religion approves of eating animals"
permitting isn't requiring. Many religions permit eating animals, but none of the major traditions requires it, and almost all of them forbid unnecessary suffering. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly; Judaism has the commandment not to cause animals unnecessary suffering (tza'ar ba'alei chayim); the Islamic tradition requires sharpening the blade to spare the animal. And there are vegetarian currents within several religions. Industrial animal farming would hardly pass these traditions' own criteria.
Short answer
Permitting isn't requiring. Your religion permits eating animals, but it doesn't require anyone to eat them. And most religions also forbid unnecessary suffering: the Catholic Catechism says it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer needlessly. Today, almost all the suffering of animals on farms is unnecessary. Many religious people, from various traditions, choose not to eat animals precisely because of their faith.
For children
Many religions say it's allowed to eat animals. But almost all of them also say we shouldn't make animals suffer for no reason. Today, many animals suffer a lot on farms. Some religious people think the most beautiful way to follow their faith is not to eat animals.
"Does your religion approve of making animals suffer when it can be avoided?"
Como pode aparecer
"My religion allows it."
"If God didn't want us to eat them, He wouldn't have made animals out of meat."
"In my religion, the animal is slaughtered with respect."
"Veganism goes against the Bible."
"God gave us dominion over animals." (which is D4)
"Jesus ate fish." (which is D5)
The strongest version
"My religion allows eating meat. If God allowed it, there's nothing wrong with it."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1My religion is a reliable source on what is right and wrong.
- P2My religion permits eating animals.
- P3What a reliable source permits isn't wrong.
- CSo eating animals isn't wrong.
P2 is true for many religions. The problem lies in two things: the same religions that permit eating animals also set limits, such as not causing unnecessary suffering, which today's production hardly meets. And P1, being a premise of faith, can't be required of those who don't share it.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because the permission comes with conditions, and premise P1 holds only for those who share the same faith.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument reads a permission as if it were an unconditional endorsement:
What the tradition says What the argument concludes What the tradition also says Eating animals is permitted Any form of production is acceptable Unnecessary suffering is forbidden Human beings may make use of animals Animals don't matter Animals are God's creatures and should be respected - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Permission isn't obligation.
A religion that permits eating animals also permits not eating them. Choosing not to eat them goes against none of the major traditions.
2. The traditions themselves forbid unnecessary suffering.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that it is legitimate to use animals for food, but that it is contrary to human dignity to cause them to suffer needlessly (§2417–2418). In Judaism, tza'ar ba'alei chayim is the commandment forbidding unnecessary suffering to animals, considered to be of biblical and rabbinic origin. In the Islamic tradition, whoever slaughters must sharpen the blade to spare the animal, and a narration attributed to Muhammad says there is a reward for doing good to any living being.
3. Today's production hardly meets these criteria.
Extreme confinement, mutilations without anesthesia, genetic selection that causes pain, and slaughter at industrial pace. If suffering that can be avoided is needless, and almost all of it can be avoided, the traditions themselves have reasons to reject most of this production.
4. There are vegetarian currents within several religions.
Jainism holds non-violence (ahimsa) toward all living beings as a central principle. Many Hindus are vegetarian. Seventh-day Adventists recommend a vegetarian diet, and many follow it. Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras condemn eating meat, and a large share of Mahayana monks and lay people are vegetarian. There are also vegetarian and vegan Christians, Jews and Muslims.
5. Public arguments need reasons everyone can assess.
For those who share the faith, the tradition is a reason. For those who don't, it isn't. So in a conversation among people of different beliefs, the question also has to be discussed in terms everyone accepts, such as the suffering of animals.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2415–2418 It is legitimate to use animals for food, but it is contrary to human dignity to cause them to suffer needlessly and to dispose of their lives indiscriminately Official text on the Vatican website Tza'ar ba'alei chayim Jewish commandment forbidding unnecessary suffering to animals; the Talmud derives it from Exodus 23:5 Animals in Islam Muslims must sharpen the blade so the animal doesn't feel pain; there is a reward for doing good to any living being Ahimsa Non-violence toward all living beings is a central virtue in Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism Buddhist vegetarianism Mahayana sutras, such as the Laṅkāvatāra, condemn eating meat; Theravada monks accept meat that is offered, unless the animal was killed for them Shows the differences between schools Adventist Health Studies Health studies of Adventists, among them vegetarians and vegans - d
The strongest counter-reply: sacrificing and eating animals is at the heart of my tradition
The most serious version says: in some traditions, ritual slaughter and eating animals on holy days are part of religious practice, not just a permission. Asking for them to end is asking the faith to change.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Even in these cases, ritual consumption is a small part.
It doesn't justify the daily consumption of animal products, which is the bulk of it.
Traditions change.
In several religions, ancient practices, such as animal sacrifices in temples, ended without the faith ending. Within each tradition, there are debates about how to apply its principles today.
The tradition doesn't decide alone for those who don't share it.
The animal who suffers doesn't belong to the religion of the person who eats them. Their suffering has to be taken into account for reasons that hold for everyone.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Confusing permitting with requiring
Selective reading
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Appeal to authority beyond its reach
Biases
Rationalization through the 4Ns
"Natural" and "normal" get religious reinforcement
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if my religion permits something, there's nothing to discuss".
If it applied to…SlaveryTap to see
Religious texts were used to justify it
The religions themselves condemn it today
If it applied to…Rodeos and animal fightsTap to see
They would be acceptable if some tradition permitted them
Permission doesn't settle the question
If it applied to…Different religionsTap to see
Each person could justify opposite practices
There's no way to decide between them without shared reasons
Contradictions
But the consumption supports a production full of it.
But not in those that ask for care toward animals.
Which shows the religion doesn't require eating meat.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that many religions permit eating animals, that faith is important to those who have it, and that it should be respected. It's also right that vegans sometimes treat religion with disdain, which only pushes people away.
But
But permitting isn't requiring, and the same traditions that permit it ask that animals not suffer needlessly. Many religious people, of various faiths, come to vegetarianism and veganism precisely through their own religion.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after