Natural Causes and the Ethical Dilemma in the Animal Kingdom

The question often arises among vegetarians and meat-eaters alike: if an animal dies of natural causes or by human hand, is it ethically justifiable to consume its flesh? This article explores the underlying principles and considerations that make this question not only complex but also deeply personal.

Natural Causes and the Cycle of Life in the Animal Kingdom

It is a poignant reminder that every life, be it animal or human, comes to an end through natural causes. Whether a crocodile eats an antelope in a predator-prey relationship or a human kills a deer with a bow and arrow, both instances serve a biological purpose within their respective ecosystems. The cycle of life and death is a fundamental aspect of nature, defining the survival mechanisms and survival of species.

Just as humans might justify their actions based on survival needs or cultural norms, many animals naturally seek out resources to sustain themselves. This cycle is often cited as a prime example of why the consumption of meat is not inherently unethical. However, this perspective does not address the subjective ethical concerns many vegetarians and vegans have.

Subjective Ethical Considerations

Many vegetarians abstain from meat not due to its edibility through natural causes but rather because of the treatment and conditions in which the animals live before slaughter. The primary ethical stance for many vegetarians is that killing for the sole purpose of consumption is not justifiable, especially if there are alternatives such as plant-based diets.

For instance, a non-vegetarian might be faced with a hypothetical scenario where a human being dies of natural causes, and the question is raised, “Would you eat him?” This question is highly sensitive and often an exercise in self-reflection, rather than a straightforward ethical dilemma.

Ethical Freeganism and Its Impact

The practice of ethical freeganism offers insight into the complex nature of ethical vegetarianism. Ethical freeganism involves consuming animal products that would otherwise be wasted. This approach can be seen as a form of activism against animal cruelty and environmental waste. However, finding such resources is becoming increasingly challenging, particularly in urban environments.

Proponents of ethical freeganism argue that it helps reduce the suffering of animals and the environmental impact of farming practices. However, in practice, it is not a viable solution for most people due to the limited availability and economic impracticality of sourcing such products.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

There is a common misconception that animals in the wild avoid consuming carcasses of dead animals. This belief is largely based on anecdotal evidence and misunderstanding. Dogs and other animals do not reject meat bodies; in fact, they often feed on them readily. Roadkill carcasses, which are more visible, do not accumulate because scavengers and decomposers quickly eliminate them.

Understanding the biology of animal deaths is crucial. Farming and wild animals can both experience various health issues such as heart problems, undetected infections, and stress, which can lead to rapid and unexpected deaths. The quality of the meat derived from these animals is not compromised; in fact, it can be some of the best, as it is almost always fresh.

Respect for Vegetarian and Vegan Choices

It is important to foster respect and understanding for the diverse dietary choices people make. Whether someone chooses a plant-based diet for ethical, health, or environmental reasons, they do so with informed and consistent principles. Conversely, making decisions based on ignorance or emotional reactions can be problematic.

Moreover, some people who consider themselves vegetarians or vegans may still engage in activities that are ethically questionable, such as purchasing lambs from a farm that treats them well. This highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making and the importance of consistent, informed choices.

Conclusion

While the concept of natural death provides a rationale for the consumption of certain animal products, it does not resolve the broader ethical debates around vegetarianism. The practice of ethical freeganism, while admirable, is not a practical solution for most people. Ultimately, the choice to become a vegetarian or a vegan is a deeply personal one, influenced by a range of factors including ethical, health, and environmental concerns.

The key takeaway is that ethical considerations around food choices are multifaceted and should be approached with open-mindedness and a willingness to understand different perspectives.