Journal of Moral Theology, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2014): 35-53 Animals, Evil, and Family Meals Julie Hanlon Rubio OR SOME, THE MORAL IMPERATIVE to avoid meat-eating is ob- vious. Children who figure out that meat equals animals are often disgusted. They vow to stop eating animals right away. Once they understand, they do not want to participate. They Fask the questions adults have forgotten about and look at pictures we cannot bear to see. Yet often they do not get very far into their vege- tarianism before giving up. The adults in their lives are still responsi- ble for making food available to them, and most of these adults are not convinced of the duty to avoid meat eating. Yet, there is no shortage of serious ethical argumentation against eating meat. Ethicists ask, “What are animals? What duties do human persons have toward them? How morally problematic is animal suf- fering and death? What sort of changes should be adopted by those who see this set of problems?” Two Christian vegetarians explain, “When regarding cooked flesh, meat eaters see food, while vegetari- ans often see animal and human suffering and death.”1 Many come to believe that we should never eat meat—because animals have certain rights that cannot be violated, because they share important character- istics with humans that suggest a duty of respect or the virtue of kind- ness, because animals suffer and die needlessly, or because they should be under stewardship rather than dominion.2 It may be allowed that in some times and places, or in rare cases of particular health is- sues, individuals may need to eat meat but, today, when alternatives are widely available, there is little justification for meat-eating for most people. In this essay, I explore a different possibility: the idea that “less meat” is a justifiable ethical stance that respects the dignity of animal life. First, I will describe eating factory-farmed meat as a form of ma- terial cooperation with evil that causes undue suffering to animals. 1 Stephen R. Kaufman and Nathan Braun, Good News for All Creation: Vegetarianism as Christian Stewardship (Cleveland: Vegetarian Advocates Press, 2002), 44. 2 Influential arguments for vegetarianism include: Peter Singer, Animals Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Movement (New York: Harper, 2009) and John Robbins, Diet for a New America, 25th Anniversary Ed. (New York: New World Library, 2012). On Christian vegetarianism, see Charles C. Camosy, For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action (Cincinnati: Franciscian Media, 2013) and Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals (New York: Crossroads, 1987). 36 Julie Hanlon Rubio Second, I will locate the practice of eating in its familial, communal, and social contexts in order to argue that while it may not be necessary for health or ideal to eat or serve meat, doing so may sometimes be an important way to realize certain relational and social goods. Third, I will suggest that everyone has an obligation to lessen cooperation with social evil and increase cooperation with social good by avoiding fac- tory-farmed meat. In the conclusion, I recognize the ideal of strict veg- etarianism, while allowing for the compromise of flexitarianism in a fallen world where obligations to ourselves, other persons, and ani- mals often conflict. BETWEEN CLEAR ARGUMENTS AND MURKY PRACTICES Before moving to my first point, I need to say a word about two assumptions that lead me to explore this line of argumentation. First, it seems that Catholic moral theology is entering a new phase of re- flection on animals. Not so long ago, Germain Grisez was able to claim with little qualification that animals, “not being persons, have no rights, and their lives lack the dignity of human life. This is pre- cisely why it can be appropriate deliberately to kill them… to serve any significant human interest… [though they do] have their own spe- cial value” and deserve “respect.”3 Today, many question whether this traditional stance is adequate. They ask us to consider animals as be- ings created by God with their own inherent dignity. They point to capacities for feeling, reasoning, and suffering which may have previ- ously been unknown or overlooked. They suggest that animals deserve more kindness and respect than we currently give them. They push us to consider whether factory-farmed meat (which accounts for almost all meat in the U.S.) can be consumed at all.4 Though Catholic teach- ing still certainly allows for meat-eating, new questions are being raised about what sort of meat-eating practice is in keeping with our duty of respect for animals. While acknowledging ongoing contro- versy about the nature of animals and the claims they have on persons, and without claiming an original position on this subject, I consider some of the practical implications of greater respect for animals. Second, I am struck by the large number of people I have met who are not vegetarian but do try to avoid factory-farmed meat and eat less meat overall. Though we do not have as much data as we need on the number of vegetarians and less-meat eaters in the U.S., I believe there is enough data to suggest a trend. Only a small percentage of adults in 3 Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus: Vol. III: Difficult Moral Questions (Quincy: Franciscian, 1997), 420. Grisez rejects Christian arguments for vegetarian- ism, 423. 4 John Berkman, “Are We Addicted to the Suffering of Animals? Animal Cruelty and the Catholic Moral Tradition,” in A Faith Embracing All Creatures: Addressing Com- monly Asked Questions about Animals, ed. Tripp York and Andy Alexis-Baker (Eu- gene: Cascade, 2012). Animals, Evil, and Family Meals 37 the U.S., perhaps 3-5%, claim to be vegetarian or vegan.5 Though it may seem that more people are embracing counter-cultural eating practices, the percentages of vegetarians and vegans have not changed significantly in the last two decades.6 More-over, a Yale University research team recently found that fewer than .1% of adults are strict vegetarians. That is, the majority of those who say that they “consider themselves” vegetarian eat meat at least sometimes, and new catego- ries are proliferating (e.g., pescatarian, flexitarian, semi-vegetarian, and vegetarians who eat meat only when others serve it).7 While the animal rights movement can claim some important successes, U.S. meat consumption rose from 178 pounds of red meat and poultry per year in 1978 to 222 pounds per year in 2007 (though beef consumption decreased and chicken consumption increased).8 Moreover, one study suggests that three quarters of people who be- come vegetarian eventually go back to eating meat.9 Most become vegetarian out of concern for animal welfare and say they return to meat because of health concerns or “hassle.”10 Only a tiny minority change their minds on ethical grounds. They are still concerned about animal welfare, just unable or unwilling to follow through. As most experts agree that, for the vast majority, vegetarianism is a healthy choice, “the hassle” seems to be the most significant reason that peo- ple give up abstaining from meat completely. In the current cultural context, at least in the U.S., it can be very hard to avoid eating meat and choosing not to eat it may sometimes put other values at risk. If you are single and live alone, it might be relatively easy to cook vegetarian meals for yourself, order vegetarian when eating out, and quietly abstain at gatherings of friends who may not eat as you do, but at least view your choices sympathetically.11 If 5 Frank Newport, “In U.S., 5% Consider Themselves Vegetarians” (July 26, 2012), www.gallup.com/poll/156215/consider-themselves-vegetarians.aspx. Newport found 5% vegetarian and 2% vegan. Studies that use the language “consider yourself” typically find higher numbers than those that ask if people “never eat meat.” See also: “Vegetarianism in America,” www.vegetariantimes.com/article/-vegetarianism-in- america/ (3.2% vegetarian); Charles Stahler, “How Often do Americans Eat Vegetar- ian Meals?” (May 12, 2012), www.vrg.org/blog/2012/05/18/-how-often-do-ameri- cans-eat-vegetarian-meals-and-how-many-adults-in-the-u-s-are-vegetarian/ (4% veg- etarian); Ashley Palmer, “2011 Vegetarian and Vegan Stats,” PETA, www.peta.org/living/food/2011-vegetarian-vegan-stats/ (5% vegetarian). 6 Newport, “5% Consider Themselves Vegetarians.” 7 Newport, “5% Consider Themselves Vegetarians.” 8 Newport, “5% Consider Themselves Vegetarians.” 9 Hal Herzog, “Why Do Most Vegetarians Go Back to Eating Meat?” Psychology Today (June 20, 2011), www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201106/- why-do-most-vegetarians-go-back-eating-meat. Herzog finds 1-3% vegetarian. 10 Herzog, “Why Do Most Vegetarians Go Back to Eating Meat?” 11 Unmarried adults are twice as likely to be vegetarian. See Hal Herzog, “Why Are There So Few Vegetarians?” Psychology Today (Sept 6, 2011), www.psycho-logyto- day.com/blog/animals-and-us/201109/why-are-there-so-few-vegetarians. 38 Julie Hanlon Rubio you are dating or married to a meat eater, things might be a bit more complicated. If you cook for a family with children, host holiday gath- erings for relatives, contribute food for church and school social func- tions, entertain your children’s friends, and host neighborhood parties, things become much more complicated. Concern for animal welfare constantly conflicts with duties of hospitality. However, the ethical movement to change eating habits in a cul- tural context in which meat is central is not doomed to failure. In the last several years, the drop in meat and poultry consumption has been significant enough to worry meat producers.12 In fact, “for the first time on record, U.S.