Home / C. Nature, biology and evolution / Part DIR
"We naturally crave meat."
the craving for meat exists, but it is largely learned and reinforced: by culture, by childhood, by salt, fat and seasoning. And even if it were entirely natural, a desire isn't a justification. We have many strong cravings that we don't follow when they would harm others.
Short answer
Wanting isn't needing. Much of the taste for meat is learned from childhood and reinforced by salt, fat and seasoning, which also make well-seasoned plant versions very tasty. And even if the desire were natural, desires don't justify causing harm: we have many strong cravings we don't follow when they would hurt someone.
For children
Sometimes we really want to eat candy. That doesn't mean the body needs candy: it means candy tastes good and we're used to it. Meat is similar. And even when the craving is strong, we can think about whether it hurts someone before doing it.
"Is there any other strong craving you don't follow because it would harm someone?"
Como pode aparecer
"It's my body asking for it."
"The smell of a barbecue is irresistible for a reason."
"I tried, but my body craves meat."
"Every vegan smells bacon and caves."
"If it weren't natural, why would it taste so good?"
"Meat tastes good." (which is J11)
The strongest version
"It's my body asking for it. The smell of a barbecue is irresistible for a reason."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Many people feel a strong, spontaneous craving to eat meat.
- P2Strong, spontaneous cravings point to the body's needs.
- P3Meeting the body's needs is legitimate.
- CSo eating meat is legitimate.
P1 is true. The problem lies in P2, which treats desire as need, and in P3, which assumes that satisfying the body never conflicts with the interests of others.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2 and P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes three things:
Claim Status I crave meat True for many people That craving is a bodily need False: well-planned vegan diets are adequate So I may satisfy it even if someone else suffers Doesn't follow from anything above - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Desire isn't need.
The body needs nutrients, not specific foods. Protein, iron and other nutrients can be obtained without meat, according to the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
2. Much of the taste is learned.
Food preferences form through repeated exposure, especially in childhood, and change over time. Many people who stop eating meat report that the craving fades after a few weeks or months.
3. Much of the appeal is flavor, not the animal.
The smell of a barbecue comes largely from charred fat, salt, smoke and seasoning. Plant products prepared the same way aren't identical, but they trigger many of the same responses, which shows that much of the desire is for flavors and textures that don't depend on anyone's death.
4. Desires don't justify harm.
We have many strong cravings we don't follow when they would harm someone. That isn't denying nature; it's having ethics.
5. The argument leads to J11.
If the craving isn't a need, what's left is pleasure, and the eater's pleasure has to be weighed against what the animal loses.
- 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 craving doesn't correspond to a need Birch, *Development of food preferences* (1999) Repeated exposure, especially in childhood, shapes taste Annual Review of Nutrition; a review of repeated exposure and children's preferences - d
The strongest counter-reply: cravings are hard to overcome
The most serious version doesn't say the craving justifies anything, but that it's real and strong, and that asking people to ignore it is asking too much. Ethics has to be realistic about what people can do.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It shifts to difficulty, not justification.
Being hard doesn't make it right (E6).
The difficulty usually fades.
With substitutes, seasoning and time, the craving tends to lose strength.
Being realistic means helping people change, not excusing them from it.
A realistic ethics offers paths, not excuses.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to nature
Equivocation
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing how taste forms
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Desire as justification
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The desire is promoted to a need because that excuses change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I feel a strong craving, satisfying it is legitimate".
If it applied to…AngerTap to see
Attacking whoever annoys us would be legitimate
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Sexual desiresTap to see
Any desire would justify acting, even without consent
No one accepts this
If it applied to…A craving to eat the neighbor's dogTap to see
It would be legitimate, if strong enough
The principle doesn't depend on species
Contradictions
No one follows every strong desire without thinking about the consequences.
Almost every adult has come to like foods they rejected as a child.
What attracts is the flavor, not the origin.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The craving for meat is real, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. For many people, meat is tied to memories, affection and pleasure, and changing takes effort. Recognizing that matters for helping people through the transition.
But
But recognizing the strength of a craving isn't accepting it as a justification. Taste can change, flavors can be recreated, and the animal's life can't.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after