This isn't animal experimentation, where you can imagine some proportionate good at the other end of the suffering. This is what we feel like eating. Tell me something: Why is taste, the crudest of our senses, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses? If you stop and think about it, it's crazy. Why doesn't a horny person have as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to killing and eating it? It's easy to dismiss that question but hard to respond to
In "Eating Animals," Jonathan Safran Foer challenges the ethical justifications behind consuming animals, arguing that the suffering of these creatures for our taste preferences is morally indefensible. He compares animal suffering in experimentation to that experienced in food production, suggesting that unlike scientific experiments which may yield a greater good, our desire for taste lacks significant ethical grounding. The idea that taste should be prioritized over the welfare of sentient beings prompts a reevaluation of societal norms regarding food consumption.
Foer further provokes thought by questioning why intense desires, such as hunger, seem to justify actions like killing animals, while other desires do not warrant similar ethical allowances. He compares this to the unacceptable nature of sexual violence, implying that the rationale for eating animals is inconsistent and troubling. This reflection highlights the need for a deeper examination of our values and the ethical implications of our food choices, encouraging readers to reconsider their relationship with what they consume.
