STUDENT VOICES | THE 2023 CHYNN ETHICS PAPER PRIZE second runner-up WINNER
Climate Vegetarianism: Diet Ethics in the context of a changing planet
by michael Sluck, Fordham College Rose Hill ’24
Vegetarianism is almost as old as philosophy itself. When he wasn’t busy calculating the sides of triangles, the Greek philosopher Pythagoreas advocated for a meat-free diet, becoming one of the first in a long line of ethical theorists to champion the cause. Throughout the centuries, however, the motivations behind vegetarianism have widely varied, ranging from ethical objections, to religious beliefs, to health benefits. In recent years, in light of the severe impacts of climate change on the planet, a new branch of “climate vegetarians” have arisen, citing global warming concerns as their primary motivation for abstaining from meat eating. As a lifelong vegetarian, this new generation of non-meat eaters has piqued my interest. In this paper, I will examine the ethical justifications behind climate vegetarianism, as well as the criticisms that climate vegetarians face from both non-vegetarians and other vegetarians.
Throughout the course of this essay, I will use the term “climate vegetarian” to describe any individual who abstains from the practice of eating meat primarily based on the impact that the meat industry has on the climate. While I use the term vegetarian, many of the arguments I intend to present can be just as easily applied to pescetarians, vegans, or any other group that abstains from the consumption of specific animal products.
The rationale behind climate vegetarianism is based on the fact that the animal agriculture industry, in its current form, poses an enormous threat to the planet. Industrial meat is the single largest global cause of deforestation; animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gasses than all the world’s transportation methods combined (Brown). In an era of increasing water shortages, animal agriculture both requires enormous amounts of water, and leads to high rates of water pollution (Libauskas). While plant agriculture also has a carbon footprint, it’s not nearly as severe as its animal counterpart. According to one study, if high-income countries were to transition to a primarily plant-based diet, they could cut their food emissions by nearly two-thirds (Torrella). In response to these challenges, environmentalists have argued for increased investment in plant-based meat technology, as well as legislation curbing the harm done by industrial meat production (Conzachi). Changes to the meat industry have been slow in coming, however, and attempts at regulation have been met with fierce pushback (Torrella). Consequently, many environmental activists are choosing to abstain from meat altogether, rather than contribute to the negative impacts the industry has on the globe.
Such a decision has been met with pushback from both other vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike. The non-vegetarian argument against climate vegetarianism is that individual action alone is insufficient to combat a global crisis. Similar arguments have centered around the purchase of electric vehicles, or individual recycling efforts. In critics’ eyes, the existential threat posed by climate change cannot be effectively battled by solely individual changes in behavior. In fact, by focusing unduly on the individual, it relieves those most responsible from moral responsibility. Critics claim that such a philosophy places the onus for global warming on the backs of citizens, when only massive reform carried out by governments and industries can impactfully address the problems at hand. There has been similar criticism around movements to “increase recycling” and “carpool more,” which are small changes in behavior that are unlikely to have a large impact if not backed up by broader, more hard-hitting policies. Critics of climate vegetarianism place the movement in the same category, as individual diet changes are insufficient to combat global warming.
This critique possesses some serious flaws, however. It is based on the faulty conclusion that a thing is only worth doing if it is proven to have large-scale moral impact. A single person volunteering an hour of their time at a local homeless shelter is unlikely to solve the issue of poverty; indeed, at most, it will only temporarily alleviate some suffering for a handful of people. But that does not mean the thing is not worth doing. Climate vegetarianism falls very much along the same lines. Following the critic’s line of reasoning to its logical conclusion would produce a dangerous philosophy. If an individual impact is truly so small as to be insignificant, then any moral or immoral action becomes inconsequential. If, for example, an individual’s recycling habits are meaningless, then whether one decides to dispose of one’s plastic cup in a designated recycling bin or throw it in the ocean does not matter. If one wishes to move mountains, one must begin by moving stones, and while the actions of any single individual are insufficient to combat the climate crisis, that does not exempt the whole of society from any sort of moral liability. The actions for which non-vegetarian critics push—more government action, more corporate reform—can be advocated for just as loudly by climate vegetarians as anyone else. Climate vegetarians merely take an added, personal moral stance (a sacrifice, for many), in an attempt to lessen their own contribution to the warming of our planet. On these grounds, they should be applauded for their efforts.
While I soundly reject the aforementioned critique of climate vegetarianism, I nonetheless have my own ethical objections to the movement, which is rooted in my own personal vegetarian ethics. My criticism of climate vegetarianism is based on the fact that it relies on a model of utilitarian vegetarianism, where animals are treated as means to a greater good, rather than ends in it of themselves. The reason climate vegetarians abstain from meat-eating is not because they believe the act is wrong in itself, but because of the negative consequences that ensue. Were the meat industry to be suddenly transformed to have no impact on the climate, many climate vegetarians would cease abstaining from meat consumption. In my personal view, however, animal lives should be treated as an end, rather than a means. I do not abstain from meat-eating because of any expected benefit to myself or the planet, but because I believe it is fundamentally wrong to engage in the destruction of creatures that have done no harm solely for the pleasure to be gained from eating them. Nor am I alone in my viewpoint; there is a riding tide of philosophers, such as human rights activist Martha Nussbaum, challenging the anthropocentric view with which humans often view different species. Many animals are able to experience pain and pleasure; they are capable of forming loving relationships; they have fears and desires. Many people would be horrified at the thought of subjecting their beloved family dog to a tortuous existence, before murdering it for the purpose of eating. They recognize that, even though the creature isn’t human, it deserves care and kindness. Why, then, do we not object to the similar treatment of other creatures, from cows to chickens? We tend to judge animals only based on human standards (lack of intelligence, lack of language, etc) rather than appreciating the planet’s creatures as they are. It is no more ethically sound to treat animals as a means to an end than it is to treat humans as such. While climate vegetarians have a noble motivation for their diet choice, it is necessary to shift their thinking from the current anthropocentric model to one that embraces all life as something to be appreciated, without regard for the “greater good” that it could serve humanity (the greater good of humanity is certainly an added benefit—but it should not be the primary motivation). While I am happy that vegetarianism is growing more prevalent, it is my hope that this new generation of vegetarians will shift their thinking to respect the species of the planet in it of themselves, rather than for any other cause.
In the history of the moral argument for vegetarianism, there has been perhaps no motive so urgent as the crisis currently engulfing the planet. While the climate crisis tends to inspire existential dread, it is also certain that, like any large conflict, it will inspire massive change. Global warming has forced humankind to reevaluate its relationship not only to the planet, but to all the species with which we share it. It is my hope that the self-reflection that the climate crisis has spawned will lead to a better, kinder world, not only for those on two legs, but for the multitude of creatures that run, fly, and swim across our planet’s surface.
For more information about the prize, past winners, and submission requirements for 2024, please visit the Chynn Ethics Paper Prize webpage. The deadline to submit is Friday, March 15th, 2024 and is open to ALL undergraduates.
Works Cited
Brown, Natalie. “7 Reasons Why Meat Is Bad for the Environment.” Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace, 14 July 2022, https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/why-meat-is-bad-for-the-environment/#:~:text=It% 20causes%20climate%20change,the%20atmosphere%2C%20accelerating%20global%20 warming.
Conzachi, Karlie. “It May Be Uncomfortable, but We Need to Talk about It: The Animal Agriculture Industry and Zero Waste.”University of Colorado Environmental Center, Regents of the University of Colorado, 16 Mar. 2022, https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-abo ut-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zerowaste#:~:text=Animal%20agriculture%20produces%2065%25%20of,all%20the%20transportation%20emissions%20combined.
Libauskas, Rebecca. “Commentary: Animal Agriculture’s ‘Water Footprint’ Is Putting the Planet in Peril.” Phys.org, Phys.org, 16 Mar. 2022, https://phys.org/news/2022-03-commentary-animal-agriculture-footprint-planet.html#:~:t ext=Growing%20crops%20for%20animals%20to,gallons%20of%20water%20per%20year.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. Simon & Schuster, 2023.
Torrella, Kenny. “This Is How Much Meat and Dairy Hurt the Climate.” Vox, Vox, 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22905381/meat-dairy-eggs-climate-change-emission s-rewilding.
The Ethics and Society Blog 