Traditional farming for meat refers to the process of rearing animals to use for human
consumption. Such livestock include cows, chickens, pigs, and sheep. Compared to factory
farming that utilizes artificial methods and chemicals to guarantee mass production, traditional
farming allows animals to consume natural foods and live in conducive environments. For many
years, vegetarians and vegans have opinions against eating animals and animal products. They
perceive that animals are living organisms with the right to life and that it is unethical to harm
them for feeding purposes. However, it is morally permissible to eat meat produced by more
traditional farms due to Biblical laws, traditional practices, the anatomy of the teeth, and non-
human animals are amoral beings.
According to the principle of ecology, the food chain exists to sustain life on earth. As such,
plants and animals have relationships that enable them to coexist. For instance, human beings eat
both plants and animals since they belong at the top hierarchy of the food chain (Steinbock 254).
For their food to be available, people need to provide it for themselves. The concept introduces
farming, where people raise livestock and grow crops to either eat or sell to sustain their needs.
Therefore, it is only natural that certain animals exist to be fed on by other animals in the
According to the culture and traditions of most communities, eating meat exists since time
immemorial. People eat meat during religious and cultural festivals since it forms a crucial part
of many cuisines worldwide (Yount). For example, hosts serve meat to guests during holidays
such as Christmas, where families and friends gather for barbeque parties. Moreover, during
dowry negotiations in some ethnic groups, the slaughtering of cows and goats is symbolic of the
blessing of marriage. However, there are some exceptions due to spiritual reasons, where
Muslims abstain from pork while Hindus refrain from eating beef. Hence, the act of eating meat
passes on from one generation to the next and can hardly be nullified as unethical.
Concepts that cultures accept may be immoral. Accordingly, most people grew up eating meat
and have never thought to justify it. The moment one argues in favor of the contrary, it is likely
that there is hardly any justifiable reason as to why people consume meat in the first place. An
example of such a scenario regards female genital mutilation in some Asian, African, and Middle
Eastern communities, which refers to the ritual circumcision of girls. The act is borderline
unethical and inhumane as it arouses reproductive health issues. The tradition was common for
many years until debates emerged and people agreed to pass the act unlawful. Therefore,
claiming that people eat meat in adherence to classical culinary habits is naïve and insensitive.
Human beings are superior and intelligent creatures compared to livestock and other animals.
Therefore, cultural obligations only apply to people as animals are unable to govern themselves
similarly. Killing animals for food during ceremonies and traditional practices is arguably unfair
to animal rights; however, human needs and comfort come first above all other living things.
Another reply to the objection of cultural obligation to eating meat is that vegetarians and
vegans eat plant-based food, hence killing plants. Despite slaughtering animals causing more
pain than chopping up vegetables, the amount of damage to the living organisms is equal (Kant
434). Therefore, it is bizarre that vegans advocating against animal cruelty fail to protect the
lives of beans, lettuce, and tomatoes.
The argument that traditions allow people to eat meat explained when people started eating meat
rather than justifying that meat-eating is ethical. Understandably, most people have been eating
chicken and beef all their lives, but that fails to explain the morality behind the behavior. For
instance, the position of women in most societies is at home doing house chores and taking care
of the family (Yount). However, such perceptions are wrong as they limit women from exploring
their full potential in career and personal lives. Therefore, cultural validation for eating meat is a
Societies form based on shared attitudes and behaviors that unite them, some of which are
primitive in the sense of originality. Modernization changes the perceptions of many
communities as people allow education, modern religion, and Western influence to transform
their lives. Regarding the position of women in society, people that still uphold male chauvinism
are traditional and lack knowledge of gender equality (Steinbock 247). However, eating meat is
something that people do for many past generations; therefore, dismissing it as unethical and
unsophisticated is ignorant of the basic human need for food.
According to the Bible, God granted the first human beings, Adam and Eve, to dominate other
animals. He also instructed Noah during the flood that he and his family could eat meat as they
please. Arguably, the Almighty approved of eating meat as a last resort since plants were
inaccessible in the ark (Yount). Nevertheless, God saw it fit to save the human creation from
hunger and starvation at the expense of other animals, which He created. Given that He is the
Father of all creation, it fits to say that eating meat is right in the Eyes of the Lord.
People who dismiss the Bible as accurate would object to God's notion that God allowed human
beings to eat meat. Besides, the statement by God that people are to dominate over other animals
may be interpreted as the need to care and protect them rather than cause them harm whenever
they see fit. For instance, parents control their children, but that hardly permits them to torture
them for whatever reasons. Thus, using the Bible as justification for eating means can be
disqualified or misinterpreted by different individuals.
Without venturing into the whole topic of creation versus evolution, the existence of living
organisms presents a hierarchy of how they coexist and sustain each other’s lives. People that
believe in the Bible but are against eating meat should understand that the creator cares for His
most precious creation, human beings. God provided means for generations of people to survive
with food as the most basic human need. Both plants and animals are edible options; hence it is
wrong to dismiss either one. People must be allowed to eat whatever they feel comfortable with
without the fear of moral judgment.
According to the food chain in the ecosystem, human beings eventually die, decompose,
and provide nutrients for plants that serve as food for animals, and the cycle continues. Besides,
if people released cows and goats into the wild, they would probably end up as food for predators
like lions and crocodiles. Human beings are superior animals who possess free will; hence their
continuity is paramount.
People accept or dismiss advice from the Bible as it suits their needs. They also agree with some
parts of it and disregard others, which questions whether they respect the moral codes of conduct
illustrated in the Holy Book (Yount). For instance, homosexuality is immoral according to the
Bible, but today's society fully supports it. Consequently, there is hardly any proof that eating
meat should be ethical simply because the Bible says so. Therefore, killing animals for food as
validated by God’s instructions is subject to scrutiny.
According to the Bible, God provides both animal and plant food to human beings. In this
respect, claiming that eating meat is wrong simply because people defy the Bible all the time
means that eating plants could also be unethical (Steinbock 251). Given this, individuals should
eat whatever they want without criticism since both animal and plant food are provisions from
God and the universe to sustain the order of things.
The anatomy of human teeth suggests that people can eat both plants and animals. As such,
chisel-shaped incisors help bite and cut chunks of meat and vegetables, while molars are for
grinding food for easy swallowing and digestion. On the contrary, herbivores have a gap between
their front teeth and molars to properly position plant tissue since they require a lot of chewing.
Hence, nature predisposes humans as organisms that can consume both animal and plant food.
Anatomy barely justifies actions as morally acceptable. The ability to do things hardly suggests
that people should do them, to begin with. For instance, people can swing their arms and hit at
things or bring their fingers together in a pinching motion. However, it invalidates the act of
going around punching or pinching people. Instead, individuals should use their abilities to
service others in the animal kingdom rather than violate their rights by killing them for food.
The animal kingdom consists of mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects, all of whom utilize their
physical capabilities to survive. For instance, lions use their strong muscles and sharp teeth to
prey, attack, and eat other animals like gazelles. The objection above seems to place humans and
non-human animals on the same intellectual and dominance level; hence it is safe to say that
lions should abstain from killing gazelles too. Besides, punching and pinching are valuable
methods of self-defense when the need arises. Therefore, the human body contains all the
necessary mechanisms to find and eat food as mandated by the principle of natural selection and
the laws of nature.
The argument allows people to eat other people since human teeth are made to eat meat. Given
that human beings are mammals, their flesh also contains a valuable nutrient in the human body.
Therefore, claiming that anatomy of the teeth allows people to eat meat may justify cannibalism,
the act of consuming organisms from the same species as the consumer.
Cannibalism is rare in the animal kingdom; it only occurs during unnatural conditions with
extreme food shortages. It also occurs to exert dominance over other animals to gain power over
animal colonies. For instance, chimpanzees and spiders are known to practice cannibalism.
However, human beings are sophisticated enough to resort to acquiring power other than eating
their competitors. Moreover, there is plenty of food globally; hence scarcity is seldom a cause for
people eating their own. Human intelligence, unlike animals, allows them to find alternative food
sources like eating meat from domestic animals.
Non-human beings are amoral, which means that they lack the sense of right from wrong. The
human ability to question one's actions makes them unique and different from other animals.
Given that animals lack a moral code of conduct, it is safe to say they are devoid of value and
rights like people do (Yount). Similarly, animals fail to belong in cultural predispositions; hence
human systems never apply to them. Since people are free to eat animal meat without caring
about moral judgment from animals, it is reasonable that fellow human beings should stop
persecuting animal meat-eaters.
Pain and suffering are felt by human beings and non-human animals alike. The process of
slaughtering animals is torturous and leads to the loss of life. Animals also bleed, as people do.
Some like pets experience affection, and female animals that become mothers care for their
young ones deeply by always protecting them from harm.
Notably, animals like pets experience affection due to training from their owners and observation
rather than from a naturally occurring instinct. For instance, stray dogs present with violent
behavior while domesticated ones are calm and friendly. Besides, some domestic dogs are
vicious and dangerous. Therefore, animals require nurturing from human beings to become
subtle creatures (Steinbock 253). Moreover, mothering animals end their relationship with their
newly born once they are of age and the mothers become pregnant again. However, people
continue loving their children forever, which means that the morality of humans and animals is
Apart from non-human animals, fetuses, the mentally challenged, and infants are also amoral
since their moral code of conduct is non-existent. Therefore, it is biased to claim non-human
animals as worthless and yet protect the rights of the named individuals. Given this, the
argument of amorality as a cause for eating animal mean is null and void since living organisms
deserve protection regardless of their ability to think for themselves.
The objection disregards the fact that human life is superior to that of animals according to the
laws of nature. The evolution theory also supports that the human species is the most advanced
in intelligence and survival instincts. Eating meat is one such means to sustain life, and people
should be allowed to do so without feeling that they violate animal rights.
In summary, it is morally permissible to eat meat since people are superior animals and
their needs precede those of any other living organism. The practice of eating meat forms the
traditions of most communities; hence consuming animal food is ethical. Further, the Bible
suggests that God permits humans to eat animal flesh. Despite fallacies against the Bible, the
ecosystem uses the food chain to survive and thrive, which is inevitable. The anatomy of the
human teeth also shows that people are omnivores that means they can eat plants and meat.
Lastly, non-human animals lack the ability to value morality, which suggests that their right to
life lies in the hands of human beings. Therefore, vegans, vegetarians, and animal rights activists
should realize that eating meat is inevitable.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Broadview Press, 2005.
Steinbock, Bonnie. "Speciesism and the Idea of Equality." Philosophy, vol. 53, no. 208, 1978,
pp. 247-256, Cambridge University Press. www.jstor.org/stable/3749431.
Yount, David J. "Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat and Objections Thereto." Mesa
Community College, 2018, www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/meatarg.html.