Lions Eat Other Animals, So Why Shouldn’t We?

BY SOFO ARCHON

A few days ago, I published an article about the needless suffering and death humans inflict on animals for producing food. I received many responses from readers, but one in particular—from a reader I’ll call Leo—stood out, as it raises several common anti-vegan arguments that I find important to address.

(Note: The messages were slightly edited to improve flow and clarity.)

Leo’s message:

Hello Sofo,

We are obviously the top predator on the planet. This necessarily inflicts pain on the animals we prey upon.

So just below us are lions and tigers, crocodiles, and most species of raptors. If we should decide to forgo our predatory instincts, then should we also inhibit lions, tigers, crocodiles, and raptors?

I am an unapologetic eater of animal flesh. A meat eater.

I do not apologize for being the top predator.

I am capable of reason. I am not fixed in my opinions. I want to know why you feel there is any moral reason for me to give up eating meat. I do not think you have made a strong logical argument.

Is your only argument emotional? I am not immune to emotional arguments. After all, my attachment to meat as food is sensual. Meat tastes good! For me, the overlap of senses and emotions is substantial.

Regards,
Leo

My response:

Hello Leo,

I was a meat eater myself for many years, so I can understand why you might not see a problem with eating meat.

The reality—which most people are unaware of—is that the human body does not need animal products to be healthy, as numerous scientific studies have shown (just do a quick search in any leading scientific journal, and you’ll see what I mean). So why unnecessarily torture, exploit, and kill animals? Just as most people find it inhumane to eat dogs or cats, I argue that eating pigs, cows, chickens, and other animals is equally inhumane.

You can argue back that it’s acceptable to kill animals for food because non-human animals, such as lions, also kill and eat other animals. But if that reasoning holds, then human infanticide would also have to be acceptable, since lions, for example, sometimes kill their own young—which I guess you, just like 99.999% of the human population, would strongly reject. The point is, just because something occurs in nature does not make it morally justifiable. Since you value logic, I suggest looking into what’s known as the “appeal to nature fallacy” to better understand what I mean. Moreover, unlike lions, humans have a choice: we can decide whether to eat meat, while lions are obligate carnivores and act purely on instinct.

As for the taste of meat, I won’t argue whether it’s good or not. Let’s assume it is. The question is, is taste more important than life and well-being? For you to enjoy meat, a sentient being—conscious and capable of feeling—had to be slaughtered. In other words, by consuming meat, you are indirectly contributing to the unnecessary suffering and death of animals. Sadly, as I pointed out in my article, many people have become so disconnected from animals that they feel little empathy toward them. As a result, they value the fleeting pleasure of eating meat over the life of the animal that had to die to provide it.

I can understand your confusion and doubts—I thought similarly before I changed my view on the issue. Social conditioning can run so deep that we start living unconsciously, unaware of how programmed our thinking and behavior have become. But since you claim that you’re not fixed in your opinions, I hope you’ll take the time to reflect further on animal rights and reconsider your dietary choices.

Love,
Sofo