Home / F. Edge cases and hypotheticals / Part DIR
"What about meat that gets thrown away?"
eating something that would be thrown away anyway, without creating demand, is a different case from buying meat. But it's a rare case that doesn't describe everyday eating, and it still has a cost: it reinforces the idea that animals are food. Besides, waste isn't an argument for continuing to produce; it's one more reason to produce less.
Short answer
It's true that eating something that would be thrown away anyway, without anyone buying more because of it, doesn't increase demand. It's a rare and different case. But it doesn't describe everyday life: most meat is bought, and every purchase creates demand. And even leftovers have a cost: eating them reinforces the idea that animals are food, for whoever eats and whoever watches. Waste is a reason to produce less, not to keep producing.
For children
If there's a piece of meat left over at a party and it's going in the trash, eating it or not changes nothing for that animal, who has already died. But if people get used to thinking "it's fine to eat it", they keep buying more meat. And then more animals die. The best thing is to have less meat left over, by buying less.
"Was most of the meat you eat leftovers that would have gone in the trash?"
Como pode aparecer
"What about meat that gets thrown away?"
"If it'll be thrown out, better to eat it."
"Party leftovers don't count."
"Vegans would rather waste food than eat it."
"Consumption with no effect on demand has no moral cost."
"The animal is already dead." (which is K2)
The strongest version
"If it'll be thrown out, better to eat it. Party leftovers don't count."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The harm to the animal happens in raising and slaughter, not in eating.
- P2If the meat has already been produced and will be thrown away, eating it doesn't increase demand.
- P3If there's no increase in demand, eating that meat causes no new harm.
- CSo eating meat that would go in the trash isn't wrong.
P1, P2 and P3 may be true in specific cases. The argument is stronger than it looks. The problem is that it only holds for those cases, and even in them there are indirect effects.
The argument is valid and perhaps sound for the strict case. It fails when used to justify ordinary consumption.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument separates consumption from demand:
Situation Does it create demand? A common case? Buying meat at the store Yes Yes Ordering meat at a restaurant Yes Yes Eating leftovers that would be binned, unplanned Perhaps not No, it's rare Planning to "take the leftovers" every time Yes, leftovers become expected No - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's a rare case.
Almost all meat consumed is bought. The leftovers case doesn't describe everyday eating (K1).
2. Recurring leftovers create demand.
If someone always eats the leftovers, whoever cooks starts counting on it, and the leftovers stop being leftovers.
3. There are indirect effects.
Eating meat, even meat that would be thrown away, reinforces the idea that animals are food, for whoever eats and whoever watches. That affects the willingness to change.
4. Waste is part of the problem.
According to the FAO, about a third of the food produced in the world is lost or wasted. With meat, that means animals raised and killed for nothing. The answer is to produce less, not to normalize consumption.
5. The argument changes the subject.
The question was about buying meat, not about what to do with leftovers.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note FAO, *Global Food Losses and Food Waste* (2011) About a third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted, around 1.3 billion tonnes a year Shows the scale of waste - d
The strongest counter-reply: wasting it also disrespects the animal
The most serious version says that throwing away the meat of an animal who has already died is a form of disrespect, and that eating it honors, in some way, the life that was taken.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The animal doesn't benefit.
Eating or not eating changes nothing for them.
Respect would lie in not killing.
Honoring the life taken would mean preventing others from being taken.
The counter-reply doesn't apply to ordinary consumption.
It's still about a rare case.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Fallacy of accident (converse)
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Ignoring indirect effects
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Changing the subject
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The rare case serves to excuse change in the ordinary case
General literature on motivated cognition
Functional categorization
Meat is still seen as food, not as an animal
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if something would be thrown away, consuming it has no moral cost".
If it applied to…Discarded products of slave laborTap to see
Buying them would be acceptable
Depends on not creating demand
If it applied to…Seized ivoryTap to see
It could be sold
Many countries destroy it so as not to stimulate the market
If it applied to…Meat from any animalTap to see
All leftovers would be food
Including from animals the person wouldn't eat
Contradictions
The case doesn't describe their own consumption.
Leftover dog meat wouldn't be eaten "so as not to waste it".
Waste is an argument for reducing production.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The argument is stronger than many admit. Eating something that really would go in the trash, without creating any demand, is different from buying meat, and some philosophers consider it acceptable. It's also true that food waste is a serious problem.
But
But the case is rare, the indirect effects exist, and waste points to the need to produce less, not to normalizing consumption.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after