-
There is still this idea that it's a bit primal and manly to kill things and eat their flesh, like there's some connection to our primitive roots, and I ain't buying it.
It's not about that though. It's about knowing where your food has come from and being able to trace back the impact that the rearing/life of that animal has had. If you are killing a wild animal or an animal that has been fed on wasted food (like the pigs that many families used to keep) then you know that the additional environmental impact that animal has had is minimal compared to a factory-farmed animal that is fed on crops grown on arable land. You can also be reasonably sure that the life of the animal has been better than if it was intensively reared, and for many people the quality of the animal's life, rather than the fact of its death, is a (if not the) key issue.
It's also about honesty and a straightforward rebuttal to the argument that people wouldn't eat meat if they had to kill the animals themselves. It's not inherently admirable to wield the knife yourself, but it does at least demonstrate that you've not dodged the most emotionally challenging part of the process.
If you're fundamentally ethically opposed to eating animals then obviously these arguments may not mean anything to you, but it's useful to remember that a lot of people do engage with the ethical questions and don't conclude that they need to completely give up eating meat.
You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ffm
kboy
Nah, totally don't sign up to this thinking that unnecessary killing is just fine as long as you wield the knife yourself, and no idea why this idea that slaughtering animals yourself is somehow admirable has gained traction. It's still killing for pleasure, whether you outsource the psychopathy or not. There is still this idea that it's a bit primal and manly to kill things and eat their flesh, like there's some connection to our primitive roots, and I ain't buying it.