Home / F. Edge cases and hypotheticals / Part DIR
"Would you eat an animal that died of natural causes?"
the question removes the main objection to eating animals, which is killing them and making them suffer. That's why it's a good philosophical question, and the honest answer is that eating an animal no one killed raises far smaller moral problems. But it doesn't describe the meat that exists: animals that die of disease or accident can't be sold as food, because of the health risk. And there are reasons not to eat them anyway, like the ones that stop us eating humans who died naturally.
Short answer
Good question: eating an animal no one killed raises far smaller moral problems, because the main problem is killing and causing suffering. But it doesn't describe the meat that exists: animals that die of disease can't be sold as food, because of the health risk. And I wouldn't eat it for the same reason you wouldn't eat your dog, or a human who died of old age: I don't see someone's body as food.
For children
If your old dog died in its sleep, would you want to eat it? Of course not! Not because it would suffer, but because it was someone, not food. Vegans think about other animals that way too. And anyway, meat at the supermarket doesn't come from animals that died of old age.
"Would you eat a person who died of natural causes? If not, is that being fussy?"
Como pode aparecer
"What if the animal died of old age, would you eat it?"
"Then eat the dog that got run over in the street too."
"If you wouldn't, you're just being fussy."
"Vegans won't even eat an animal that died on its own. It's ideology."
"Eating animals that died without human intervention involves no harm."
"The animal is already dead." (which is K2)
The strongest version
"What if the cow died of old age? Would you eat it then? If not, you're just being fussy."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The vegan objection to eating animals rests on the suffering and death caused to them.
- P2An animal that died of natural causes wasn't made to suffer or killed to be eaten.
- P3If the vegan still refuses to eat it, the refusal doesn't rest on harm to the animal.
- CSo veganism is a matter of taste or purity, not ethics.
P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3: there are other reasons not to eat someone's body, and the conclusion confuses one person's choice with the moral justification for veganism.
The argument is valid in form, but P3 is false: the refusal can have reasons that aren't whim.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The question separates two things that usually go together:
Case Death caused? Suffering caused? Creates demand for breeding? Describes supermarket meat? Animal raised and slaughtered Yes Yes Yes Yes Animal dead from disease or old age No Not by the death No No The hypothetical case removes the main objection. So the moral question left is much smaller, and it's honest to say so.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. The refusal can have other reasons.
Many people don't eat the bodies of those they love, or of humans who died naturally, out of respect, not fear of causing harm. The philosopher Cora Diamond observed that we don't eat our dead, even when it would harm no one, because we don't see them as food. A vegan can see animals the same way.
2. There are also health reasons.
Animals that die of disease can carry pathogens. That's why the law in many countries forbids using animals that died outside slaughter as human food, such as the European rules on animal by-products and the US rule condemning livestock found dead or dying.
3. The case doesn't describe reality.
Supermarket meat comes from animals raised and slaughtered. The question about the animal that died of old age doesn't justify buying that meat (K2).
4. The human test.
If a person dies of natural causes, no one thinks refusing to eat them is "fussiness" or proof that respect for the dead is irrational. The same refusal, faced with an animal, shows no inconsistency; it shows the person extends the same respect to animals.
5. One person's refusal doesn't define veganism.
Even if some vegans would eat an animal that died naturally, and some philosophers consider that acceptable, the argument against exploitation would still stand. Veganism opposes exploitation, and this case involves none.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Diamond, "Eating meat and eating people" (1978) We don't eat our dead, even when it harms no one, because our moral concepts don't treat people as food Philosophy, 53(206) European Union, Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 Rules on animal by-products not intended for human consumption, including animals that died outside slaughter United States, 9 CFR 309.3 Livestock found dead or dying are condemned and can't be used as human food The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation of and cruelty to animals The hypothetical case involves no exploitation - d
The strongest counter-reply: so veganism is about purity
The most serious version says: if vegans refuse even what causes no harm, their position is about staying pure, not about animals. That would show veganism is an identity, not an ethics.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Respect isn't purity.
Not eating someone's body out of respect is a common moral attitude, which we apply to humans without calling it purity.
The central argument remains intact.
What veganism criticizes is exploitation. That a vegan also refuses a case without exploitation doesn't weaken the criticism of the case with it.
Some vegans would accept it.
The refusal is individual and varies; the foundation of veganism doesn't depend on it.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dilemma
Generalizing from the accident
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing reasons
Biases
Functional categorization
Farm animals are seen as food in any situation
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if eating something causes no harm, refusing it is fussiness".
If it applied to…Humans who died naturallyTap to see
Refusing to eat them would be fussiness
No one accepts this
If it applied to…PetsTap to see
Refusing to eat one's own dog that died of old age would be irrational
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Respect for the deadTap to see
Funeral rites would be whims
Contradicts the practices of almost every culture
Contradictions
And doesn't call that fussiness.
For the same reason of respect.
Not from animals that died naturally, which never reach the market.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that the case of the animal that died naturally removes the main objection to eating animals, and it's honest to admit that. It's also right that some vegans refuse animal products for reasons that go beyond direct harm.
But
But the case doesn't describe the meat that exists, there are health and respect reasons not to eat bodies, and veganism doesn't depend on an individual choice in this rare case. The criticism of exploitation still stands.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after