Ethics on Consuming Animals

in the 21st Century:

“We Are Co-Sufferers”
by Kia Cortez, Philo 13, Section - BB

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Philosophy 13 of the Loyola

Schools, Ateneo de Manila University

1
The Landscape of Plant-Based Eating Today
I am undoubtedly privileged to have been born in this era. I live in a time where I
can vote as a woman, where I don’t have to forage for food in fear of winter, nor wait for
summer to enjoy summer foods. I can find answers in seconds, have the luxury to talk
to people from around the world at my leisure, and food is readily available to order or
buy when I’m incapable of taking care of myself. It’s also a great time to eat
plant-based, as there are dozens of innovative protein alternatives ranging from
legumes, beans, nuts and even synthesized protein (like seitan) that satisfy the cravings
to eat, say chicken, or any other animal. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible to not know
of someone (or someone who knows someone) that affirms that they don’t eat meat,
asks for alternatives, and is also someone who is debatably a wedding-planner’s worst
nightmare. Vegetarianism -- the concept of abstinence from the consumption of animal
meat -- which can be traced from even 500 BCE from Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher
was also the basis of the term “vegan,” and has roots tracing back to as early as 1944
which can be sourced from eastern Mediterranean and Indian societies (Suddath,
2008). The term “plant-based,” is similar to vegetarianism in the sense that it avoids
meat, seafood and animal by-products such as dairy and eggs, and has taken the food
industry by storm, with its market to only continue to grow (Solway, 2021). We can see
athletes from The Game Changers, and villages like Amirim, and even a tribe which
was vegan as per tradition for millenials, to have flourished under this lifestyle.

Thus I pose the following insight: that we, as a species, have progressed to the point we
no longer need to continue the consumption of animals for sustenance, more so in
these times where everything is available.

Since prior, and for more than hundreds of years, man has lived alongside animals and
has utilized them as they see fit -- for labor, sustenance, companionship, clothing -- with
early ancestors to have been found to have consumed animals to survive in African
savannas (Gibbons, 2013), and now additionally for activities to entertain ourselves thus
having this practice deeply ingrain itself in our cultures, and conversely, social norms.
The question of “Is it immoral to raise and kill animals for human consumption?” is not

2
by any means new, but presents itself to be especially relevant now -- where our
livestock agriculture has greatly contributed to the reason why we are 350 parts per
million of CO2 as well as greenhouse gases above the safest level of emissions,
exacerbating the effects of climate change -- and has caused environmental racism,
displacement of people, and affected traditions of communities which I will expound on
later.

The Importance of Investigating Such Social Norms

To expound on why I shall further investigate the aforementioned question, is
simply put -- because to think ethically, is to think and consider things beyond ourselves
and concern ourselves with the “other” we encounter daily, as discussed in plenaries.
By learning who we are in relation to the world, how to act in the world, are we able to
continuously question whether or not these practices we have are done in consideration
to the other. By investigating, and continuously acting with the other in mind, we are
able to have a wider perspective that allows us to morally progress. Moral progression,
as defined by Dehana, is the moral concept referring to when a moral concept expands
its scope (or rather, to whom these core values or concepts shall apply to) through a
process called semantic deepening which expands the circle of moral concern of those
who are affected. The same way we have abolished slaves, and claimed rights for
women to vote, we are to thank moral progression (Dehana, Is there such a thing). This
moral progression, reminds us that morality is not monolithic -- and that over time, we
may realize our fundamental concepts of things to change.

For starters, philosophers have commented on the act of eating meat, with Tom
Regan commenting that animals, like humans are beings with their own interests,
preferences, and wants -- and just like humans, are the subject of life, and Peter Singer
questioning if we are justified in inflicting suffering onto them unnecessary cruelty and
pain for the sake of our own interests that are deemed to be “superior” to theirs
(McGregor, 2018). This begs the first question of how we apply ethics to the other. If our
application of ethics and morality is based on the recognition and identification that the
“other” is like me -- that they feel pain like me, want safety and security like me, and

3
have their own interests like me -- what sets us apart from them? Or rather, what makes
us deem that our interests unequivocally triumph over theirs, and that ours are more
superior to them? If ethics is about how we must treat other human beings, then the
logic that would follow is that animals hold that of a 2nd class moral status, justifying our
exploitation of them

Singer expounds on this concept, coining the term “speciesism” which he treats
analogously to sexism and racism -- as the common ground they hold is that one race
or sex favors their own race or sex over the other, similarly to how speciesists favor their
own species. Arguably, if those standards we hold tha
‘

ethics as we know it, is a concept of which “if a human lived in isolation, there would be
no need for ethics,” to which implies that the scope it applies to is not extended to
animals.

I believe that along these conveniences, comes the responsibility of understanding the
weight of each option we have -- and that globalization, which has granted us luxuries
such as having Korean instant noodles readily available in supermarkets and avocados
even in November, has likewise brought profound risks and threats.

Thus I pose the following insight: that we, as a species, have progressed to the point we
no longer need to continue the consumption of animals for sustenance, more so in
these times where everything is available.

In line with this insight, I propose also that our scope of morality has expanded to
consider further than our direct members not only because we have the luxury as a
settled civilization to consider others, but also.

4
 As Temporal (2021) has said in class plenaries, “The beginning of ethics is the
realization we are co-sufferers.” While it’s been established that ethics is in relation
specifically to the human other, I have also countered that our species is not only
capable, but also evolving to expand the scope of who we consider the “other” to be. To
continue to choose violence, and unnecessary cruel suffering that is fundamentally
speciesist despite the plethora of alternatives we are incessantly offered would not only
be a betrayal to core values (such as compassion, safety, kindness, and care), but also
a betrayal to the “other” ethics strives to take into consideration.