We need a better way to talk about eating animals. We need a way that brings meat to the center of public discussion in the same way it is often at the center of our plates. This doesn't require that we pretend we are going to have a collective agreement. However strong our intuitions are about what's right for us personally and even about what's right for others, we all know in advance that our positions will clash with those of our neighbors. What do we do with that most inevitable reality? Drop the conversation, or find a way to reframe it?
In "Eating Animals," Jonathan Safran Foer asserts the need for a more constructive dialogue regarding the consumption of meat. He emphasizes that meat should be a focal point in public discussions, reflecting its significance in our diets and daily lives. Rather than seeking universal agreement on the ethics of eating animals, Foer recognizes that people's beliefs will often conflict. This divergence in views prompts the question of whether we should ignore the conversation or seek a new way to approach it.
Foer argues that reframing the conversation around eating animals could lead to more meaningful dialogue. Acknowledging that everyone has strong, personal intuitions about their choices allows for the exploration of differing perspectives. Rather than silencing the debate, engaging with diverse viewpoints could foster understanding and promote a more thoughtful examination of our relationship with the animals we consume.