Does eating meat exhibit prejudice against animals?

Veganism and vegetarianism has been on the rise over the past few decades. Some choose such a diet due to allergies, to be healthier or to help the environment.As such over the past few decades it has been questioned within the field of philosophy whether we have a moral duty not to eat meat, that is not a moral duty to ourselves or our planet but to the animals which we intend to eat. There are many arguments which have come from philosophy in support of vegetarianism and against meat eating. But perhaps the most famous comes from Peter Singer's 'All Animals are Equal', which states that we shouldn't eat animals otherwise we would be participating in a form of prejudice. Prejudice is defined, as an unfavourable opinion or mistreatment of a being, due to some unjustified preconception. Singer argues that if animals’ interests are not considered equally to human’s interests, they face prejudice, as their interests are viewed unfavourably simply because they are animals. Thus, by eating meat and going against an animals interest to continue to live that we are falling prey to prejudice and comiting a morally wrong act. 

Singer proposes that humans have prejudice against other species, specifically, non-human animals. He argues that, in order to be morally justified when decision making and maintain equality within society, one must have an equal consideration for each beings’ interests, that is one cannot automatically preference one beings’ interests over another’s. For example, we shouldn't automatically consider a mans interests more important than a woman's simply because he is a man, we must consider both parties interests equally to begin with before assessing the situation. Singer then states that as all animals can suffer they would thus inherently possess an interest not to suffer and an interest to continue living. Therefore, as animals’ maintain interests they have interests which should be considered equal to human beings. This is not to state animals must have the exact same rights as humans, such as right to vote, but their interests, such as not wanting to suffer, must be consistently considered equally alongside humans’ interests. But when we eat meat (for example) we do not consider the animals interest not to die as equal to that of a humans would be interest of not dying, this is because we see animals interests as lesser because they are non-human. As such by eating meat we exhibit prejudice against animals in the same vein as we would exhibit prejudice if we always favoured mens interests over women's, as we determine automatically that human interests are more important than animal interests. 

There have of course been many arguments against Singer's essay, one such argument is the claim that due to animals’ quality of life being significantly lower than that of humans, their interests would be automatically of lesser value and as such should not be held in equal consideration to human interests. Thus, we would not be exhibiting prejudice by eating them for example, as their interests do not need to be consider alongside our own. Quality of life is a measure to judge one’s experience and how fulfilling it is, through valuing one’s quality of life one also values one’s interests as it is through experience interests are formed. Those who have a lower quality of life would have interests of significantly less value and as such their interests should not be compared as equal to those who have a higher quality of life.One could argue that humans have a naturally high quality of life due to a certain ‘richness’, formed from a range of deep, complex experiences and emotions, which allows one to appreciate life in unique ways, such as appreciating aesthetics. Although animals possess a quality of life, they do not possess the ‘scope’ to achieve such richness, their experiences and interests remain banal and reach no significant depths. Thus, as animals have a lower quality of life, their interests would be of far lesser value than human interests, as they are not formed from rich experience. Therefore, animals’ interests should not be held in equal consideration to humans’ ‘richer’ interests, because their interests are not equal in value. 

Yet, this argument fails as, although clear that the average adult human would have a higher quality of life, in this sense, than animals, there would be humans who, due to their lower quality of life, would have interests of the same value and thus comparable to that of animals. For example, take a baby who is terminally ill and will die within a few months. They are conscious, but lack environmental awareness or any ability to reason and as such would not have rich experiences. Therefore, they would have a low quality of life compared to an adult human and as such their interests would be of lesser value (as they aren't formed from rich experience). Given that they will also die within months one cannot even state that their interests would be equal to that of an adults because their quality of life will approve when they are older. The fact that the infants lack fully formed consciousness indicates that some animals may even have richer experiences than it, thus a greater quality of life than such an infant, as they, unlike this baby, can gain pleasure from playing and mating. Indeed, in this scenario the infants interests, will lack complexity and depth thus they posses interests of a similar or even lesser value to most animals. Therefore, if animals have a similar quality of life to such infants, their interests cannot be inherently lesser than all humans. As such animals’ interests should be considered equally to that of (at least some) babies. However, it is clear through eating animals but not these certain infants, that their interests are not considered equally and as such speciesism (prejudice) occurs. 

Perhaps, however, humans as a species have a natural ‘capacity’ for a higher quality of life, which illustrates humans’ greater worth over animals, such that human interests should always be considered of higher value than animals’ interests. Although some humans have a low quality of life due to a set of contingent circumstances, they still possess this natural capacity to reach a higher quality of life. This indicates their higher value of being, as their species alone have the potentiality for greater experiences in life. It is valid to suspect that humans would naturally possess such capacity as humans are the only species that can achieve a high quality of life, whereas, no animals have ever reached such high quality of life. Thus, due to humans possessing this capacity, they are inherently beings of higher worth, therefore, their interests are of greater value and should always take preference over animals’ interests. Yet, this argument fails, as even if such capacity exists it does not provide a sufficient reason to justify treating animals as lesser. This is because such a capacity is insignificant, as it does not necessitate a high quality of life (such as in babies) and ultimately does not alter one’s person. In a hypothetical society in which only men have a capacity for slightly higher intelligence thus a slightly higher quality of life, one would not state that the society has any right in treating women lesser and not acting in their best interest, especially as (despite having the capacity to) not all men reach this higher intelligence. Indeed, such a capacity to have the highest quality of life appears insignificant.  Therefore, this argument does not provide sufficient reason as to why animals interests should not be considered equally, as such Singer’s argument remains and we commit a prejudicial injustice by eating meat and allowing animals to suffer because we fail to respect animals interests as equal to humans.

Indeed, through this quick discussion of Singers argument against eating meat that I have outlined it seems that one would be exhibiting a prejudice against animals by eating meat, and as such one is immoral to eat meat. Whilst animals interests are at least equal to that of a terminally ill infant due to their quality-of-life being similar, we would not eat or torture a living infant despite doing such to animals. This therefore indicates on the surface a prejudice we hold against animals. Therefore, if we want to rid ourselves of all prejudice, given that it is morally wrong to act upon prejudice, we should on Singers view stop eating meat.