I don't think there's anything wrong with eating meat per se. But I think we should be discussing how often people eat meat which is the bigger problem. Both for our health and for the environment.

Meat eaters don't need to defend why they eat meat, it's just the way it is.
Just like I could care less if someone doesn't want to eat meat it's there choice. No worries.
I also don't need to defend why I like to wear a baby seal skin thong, uh, well you know it gets cold here in Alaska.
Please, I'm not looking to start a flame war, I don't even live in Alaska.

I'm a vegetarian myself, but I think the best ethical reason for eating meat is because some people need to. Not everybody's makeup is the same, and while I've never had a problem, other people have iron deficiencies and other issues that make meat (especially red meat) necessary for their basic health.

explaining why doing something is specifically ethical is sort of a weird task. lots of things are neither ethical or unethical - they just are.

why is swimming ethical. or driving a car. or doing some pushups... this seems like a weird way for anti-meat folks to continue to try to make their point that they're right and us meat-eaters are wrong...

The question is very controversial...maybe, it would be interesting or outright plain if you asked - why being a vegetarian or vegan is ethical :)

I am a vegetarian myself and come from a culture where being a vegetarian is a way of life ( we have non-vegetarians around us).

One of the arguments i hear often is - Earth will not be able to feed all if everyone on the planet (humans) were to turn vegetarian or vegan.

I have my opinion on this but just stating an argument as to how my meat eating friends say its logical and ethical to depend on sources other than plants for food

I'm interested in what the winning response will be, mainly because it's bound to be a stretch. Eating meat is inherently unethical to the animals that are killed. These people are just trying to make themselves feel better about their participation in the suffering of farmed animals.

factory/assembly line kind of environment of food production is something we need to consider before declaring ethical points...traditional long gone methods to produce meat and then consuming them arent around anymore...so ethics perspective flops right there

I'm with @KARMALILY on this one.

Yup, @Karmalily nailed it.

Just by looking at who the judges are we can almost bet the farm that they will not like any of the entries. @Karmalily, do you really believe what you write?

I'm impressed by that list of judges. Respondents have a tough audience.

That said, I'm with @Bobsquare. The most ethical reason I can see is that some people will be healthier with a little meat in their diet. It is so nutrient-dense, full of protein, minerals, and healthy calories. Some people really need these kinds of food. Some people struggle to gain weight, not lose it.

I'm very curious about the results. Please post them for us, in case we forget to follow up!

Even vegans are responsible for animals deaths, so they are unethical too I guess.
I love when someone decides they are personally quslified to decide what is ethical for the entire human species, lol.

hm.... so it is unethical to kill animal. Are we all supposed to be practicing jainism?

I'm a big fan of NYT and the mentioned judges, but coming up with this kind of contest is arrogant and conceited. The premise of this contest seems to be that eating meat is fundamentally unethical and thus let's see how meat eaters defend themselves. It looks like they are just chanting the slogans of hardcore vegans.

Humans have eaten meat for as long as we have existed, and we are physiologically an omnivore. We are supposed to be eating meat, not in the absurd amounts that many Americans eat, but still we are supposed to be eating meat for nutrients. This is not a question of ethical or unethical. It is just what our body is. I don't understand why ethics is involved here. Do we question ethical integrity of lions butchering through the carcass of a gazelle? No we don't. The same thing should be applied to human eating meat.

By the way, I fundamentally disapprove the way that we raise meat through factory cattling. That is unethical.

However, asking if human eating meat is ethical or nonethical is simply irrelevant.

As a cancer patient I'm required to eat a lot of protein. It's a triple whammy: on top of supporting your normal bodily functioning, you need to account for both "feeding" your cancer cells (they steal your nutrition) and also restoring your blood supply. Treatments like chemo and radiation destroy some of your healthy blood cells, so your body has to work overtime to create new red, white, and platelet cells to replace them.

I don't think I could possibly reach my daily protein goal without meat, but even when healthy, I just don't agree with KARMALILY that eating meat is inherently unethical. There's obviously a wide range of ethics (or lack thereof) within modern meat production, but that's far different than claiming that the very act of eating meat is intrinsically wrong.

I'm sort of confused about the prompt to begin with. Do they want people to say why eating meat isn't unethical, or do they want people to specifically argue that eating meat is an ethical obligation?

I think this whole thing is sort of strange, and it feels to me like part of the modern movement to "get back to basics" which includes disparaging people with different food choices.

Agreed with BOBSQUARE, TDS7, TUMBA, and AKAY. I don't think omnivores choose to eat meat because their moral compass guided them there; omnivores eat meat because they do. It just is. Most human children are brought up to eat meat because it's physiologically and culturally the norm.

We obviously have ethical issues today with the over-consumption of meat and with inhumane industry practices. I'm a big proponent of fixing those problems, but I don't think the basic idea of consumption of meat is unethical. Animals just do eat other animals -- I don't know why our level of cognitive function should matter.

It seems like the focus is on the animals, even in the contest article.

Personally, I would worry for the farmers who make a living off selling meat. It's great to be worried about the environment and try to improve it and all, but you will screw a lot of already poor people for taking away their source of income if they have no other marketable skills. Find a new solution--don't just kick down and brush away those people.

I don't think the contest should be about meat, but rather about why being vegetarian is so ethical?

By that, I mean that we have been eating meat since forever and it's part of us. A person rarely decide to be omnivorous; on the contrary usually people choose to be vegan (which by the way is not a critic, I don't care what you eat, as long as I get to eat meat :) ). Unless you have a little Lisa (Simpson's) in your family and unless parents of this person are already vegetarian, I doubt you'll see many young kids choosing to be a vegetarian.

I'm all about not killing animals of the wild to be served as food for human (mostly when some are almost extinct), but otherwise, bring me some chicken :)

PS: As some other users pointed out, animals DO kill each other as well to eat; should they also turn vegetarian?

this 'contest' sounds pretty one sided to me. a veritable 'murderers row' of judges all known for questioning or condemning the consumption of meat? gee, no, that's not a trap at all!

and the way they word it? 'just tell us why it is ETHICAL'... really?

It sounds to me like this gangbang crew of vegan friendly judges really just wants to unleash their firing squad of 'why it is UNETHICAL' upon anybody who even TRIES to prove the positive points of eating meat. Who would voluntarily stand in front of the whipping post for this kind of transparent BS? not me. I'll be off enjoying my eating choices thank you.

It is an odd question; people with absorption issues may become sick on a vegetarian diet, plus which there are many other vegetarian diets which are horrible for animals and the environment as well. Humans are not herbivores; it's a matter of the most humane way to farm or hunt animals and then remember that if you drive a car or use products with palm oil you're causing just as much suffering.

@KarmaLily,

You seem to be confusing the ethics of killing animals with the ethics of eating meat. Your argument is completely irrelevant to eating an animal that was found dead, therefore it does not address the same issue. Perhaps a little more critical analysis of your ideologies are in order?

I forsee a lot of ridiculous answers about how eating meat is what made humans what we are today (assuming they weed out all the faulty science about how the planet can't sustain 7 billion vegetarians and whatnot) and how tradition is more important than the life of a cow or pig.

Simply put, the only way eating meat is a justifiable action is if you are required to do so for survival. Most of the world is not in such a position, and so for most it is unethical and indefensible. If you don't have to cause pain and death, you have a moral obligation to avoid doing so. Personal preference, culture, and tradition are not acceptable excuses.

@MISSDEWEY

Therefore all animals who eat other animals are being unethical... which is what I get from your argument, but doesn't really makes sense, because as stated before, I don't see how we could force a lion to eat grass and fruits instead of a zebra.

@melbee85

When talking about ethics, we're talking about the actions of people, not animals. Animals do a great many things that we would consider unethical behavior in humans, but we don't judge them on it because it is as yet unproven that they can reason the way we do.

Vegetarianism simply spares certain animals. A Federal scientist told our graduate class that in order to save polar bears, she would have to arrest people every time they drove their cars. It is not unethical to eat food. The ethics comes in where you choose to buy factor farmed or humane certified, and how often. More cows will be spared suffering if everyone simply reduced their meat intake than if a handful of people go vegetarian.

Dear Cambira Bold,

"(perhaps to give meat eaters a chance to defend themselves against this recent study?)"

A scientific paper that shows a correlation between eating a certain food and a higher incidence of cancer and hear disease does not effect the ethics of eating said food. To make such an argument is just silly and naive.

@Username26

If you would like to intentionally conflate two distinct ethical issues, then please keep it to yourself, rather than spreading misinformation. I am not nit-picking. I am making an important distinction that many people are apparently incapable of discerning on their own. Rearing animals, killing animals, and eating animals are three distinct issues, even if they all involve animals.

USERNAME26
Most of us just don't think of consuming meat as an ethical issue. It's amoral to us -- and remember that doesn't mean "not moral", it means that it's neither moral nor immoral. To repeat a phrase, it just is.

So you can appeal to logic and make comparisons to murder and bigotry as much as you want, but you won't convince us that way because, if it's a fundamentally amoral issue to me, I think that your ethical arguments simply don't apply.

To clarify what many commenters here are saying: we don't have the burden of convincing anyone that it's ethical if we think it's a choice that's inherently unrelated to ethics. We don't want or need to present an argument for ethical meat-eating. It's amoral. Humans are omnivores. It simply is. We aren't trying to justify ourselves or and we definitely aren't trying to change your mind.

I'm sure that's frustrating to hear since to you consuming meat clearly is an inherently ethical issue. I'm just hoping to illuminate why some people might be starting to get contentious about your reasoning. It's not that they don't respect (or even share) your empathetic feelings toward animals, it's just that for your typical omnivore, eating meat is a fact of nature that's intrinsically divorced from morality.

You said it best - you drive only when you need to. That is what everyone should do in regards to meat. As you said, it is a choice. If you choose to, wonderful. Educate people as well. But don't expect people who feel they need meat for nutrition to never eat it again. There's enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed. ps I was a vegetarian for 20 years until I developed a wheat allergy. Try going vegetarian and gluten free for a month, see what happens.

(Above comment was to Username26).

@Username 26 you may take the bus or carpool but that's exactly like being an omnivorre. If you use anything that emits fossil fuels, you are still "eating meat". You are still contributing to the problem. As far as either or, there are only 2 options. Either people eat meat or they don't. I am fine with the idea that everyone could become a vegetarian. But as I said, it would be a choice. That means the "option" is not a decision made by the masses, it is made by the individual.

USERNAME26, I accept you have no feelings one way or the other, but I think a lot of people do when they are presented with options on how their meat is made.

I'm not talking about how meat is made. As I said in my first post, I'm only talking about the basic idea of eating meat, not the many other issues surrounding the production of meat. For most omnivores, meat consumption itself is not an ethical question. This is the part that simply is. We accept ourselves physically as omnivores, and ethics doesn't factor into it.

Meat production is a different discussion. Many of us who eat meat do have concerns and objections about aspects of the modern meat industry, which is why there's an increasing market share for organic and sustainable options.

While those two topics -- the eating of meat and the mass production of meat -- are clearly related, it's an important distinction. I would like the livestock industry to improve, not be eliminated entirely. People can simultaneously feel that animals should be well treated but still think it's just part of our nature to consume them.

@Username26, "you were implying that reduction is better than elimination" NO, please learn to read more carefully. My point is that more cows will be spared if every single person reduced their meat intake than if we depend on the small percentage of practicing vegetarians. This is unarguable. I do not "feel" the need to eat meat. My doctor unequivocally stated this and he's a world-class physician. Unless you'd like to show me similar credentials, I anxioiusly await that moment. Based on your level of attention so far I'm not counting on it. Also I think you should take the vegetarian-gluten free challenge I presented in order to put your money where your mouth is. Also there is zero hyperbole in what I said about palm oil. If we're talking about birds alone, 17 percent of bird and 12 percent of the planet's mammal species live in Indonesia, the number one producer of palm oil. This deforestation also drains peat bogs which releases massive amounts of CO2. If you want to compare that apocolypse to cattle farms, feel free. I expect published studies for you to prove your point.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5867/1235.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00011.x/full

Well, as a former vegetarian, someone with digestive issues and an underweight child who *does* eat meat, vegetarianism is out for us.

Man is an omnivore, and I see no reason to apologize for it or to try to make an ethical argument in favour of eating meat. As many others have said before me, it just *is*. We have neither the digestive tract of a carnivore nor that of an herbivore; we're somewhere inbetween.

As a former vegetarian though, the ethical dilemma I have is with factory farming. Thus, all our meat is from small, local farmers who don't use growth hormones or other unnatural practices, and who treat their animals ethically. We also make a point of searching out heritage breeds to try to sustain genetic diversity. It's pretty rare for us to buy meat from a supermarket. My husband worked with federal meat inspectors, and has been on many kill floors, and so we are well aware of the issues. After that experience, we radically changed how much and the kind of meat we consume.

@jheald1, you're correct in stating that the results of the study have nothing to do with the ethical implications. I was merely stating that I think the timing of the contest is directly correlated to the recent meat-eating study that's been all over the news lately. People are talking about meat; hence, all sorts of conversations and questions come up.

USERNAME26,
As I said before, while those two subjects are intertwined, each is a separate moral discussion. People can and do talk about them separately -- many vegetarians and vegans do. Some vegetarians or vegans choose their diet because they think that eating meat is fundamentally wrong (meat is murder. period.). Some choose their diet because they think that the modern livestock industry is flawed (maybe they saw a documentary that disturbed them).

Yes, my meat comes from somewhere, so I choose the places that are making strides to better the industry. The industry is not improving because groups like PETA pull outlandish stunts to get attention; the industry is improving because consumers like me are voting with our dollars. Livestock should be well-treated during its life, and when it comes time for it to die, I hope it's quick. The fact that the animal must die is part of the amoral part of eating meat for a natural omnivore. It just is. We just do.

@Username26 I agree of course that vegetarianism would be a great way to reduce farm animal suffering. I used to be a veterinary use and in my mind the only way to treat farm animals is as beloved pets like horses. Preferably from rescue groups. I think Humane Certified farms do not go far enough but they're the best option right at this moment.

"it's not like you are stating anything unknown"

Well certainly I've never met a PETA person who encouraged that step (although to their credit they do push for better treatment on farms).

My primary point with palm oil is that species do not vanish like ghosts into the night when they go extinct. Some countries have few hunting regulations. Many are hunted or worse, baited into leghold traps. Loggers who clear the land for agriculture set up logging roads to get their trucks in and poachers regularly use those roads to trap endangered species, who are then sold for bushmeat or kept in rusty steel cages that are unthinkably small and stacked on top of one another. The animals (endangered civets, cats, primates) are bred and sold to the exotic pet industry. The breeding animals may never leave small cages the rest of their lives.

And that's just palm oil. Sun-grown coffee, cocoa and tea farms cause similar problems. Let's not forget that losing habitat means animals are forced into either the fringes of habitat where they must fight to the death for territory, or cities where they're shot by the authorities (sometimes captured, caged and made into soup or in the case of bears, have their organs harvested for "medicine").

So vegetarians CAN make choices that cause absolutely horrid suffering. Let's not compare - it's not a contest. I'm just saying that vegetarianism is one of many steps.

Does Lierre Keith know about this contest? ;D

People do things that are unethical all the time. Eating meat is 10000% unethical. I don't dislike people who eat meat, I know I do unethical things too. To try and argue that it is ethical though is just ridiculous. Just fess up and we can move on! Also, how do they consider Michael Pollan to be a good judge for this? He absolutely defends eating meat as ethical, just not too much for health reasons.

@Cambria

Ah. In that case I completely agree with you! I misunderstood the reason for your comment. It seemed more snarky than insightful, but now I know better! :)

@username26

"It is unethical to kill unnecessarily. In most cases, it is unnecessary to eat meat."

You are conflating the issue, once again. The necessity of eating meat does not impact the ethic issue of doing so. That is a conditional argument, and just silly in general. Additionally, while killing an animal is arguably unethical, an animal that is killed for food is not being killed unnecessarily: it must be killed in order to be consumed. By implying that killing animals for food is unnecessary because eating animals is not necessary for survival (which is a condition argument), you are conflating the ethics of killing animals with the ethics of eating meat. If you can't distinguish between these two issues, then clearly you can't participate in this discussion.

@westerma12

"Eating meat is 10000% unethical."

I have to disagree, based solely on the mathematical impossibility of your statement. ;)

@ JHEALD1

"Found dead?" Are you eating roadkill?

What I would like to see is an essay, written by a vegan, that explains why they think it's ethical to be dependent on slave labour to harvest their food for them.Commercial farming IS destroying the global environment and fully dependent on slave labour.Why are their merciful hearts not open to include the suffering of all?You say you care about cows,but you don't seem to give a hoot about the cow's caretaker or the society that the cow must live in.When making anti meat statements the worse circumstances found are only fodder for argument.
The argument that eating meat is merely amoral, for many, has been done.I think it's time for vegans to be put to the same fire as meat eaters have.Can they honestly say that their food was harvested by people, that weren't just as thoughtlessly used,abused and ...yes,many times murdered like cattle?As far as I'm concerned,it's a two way street and vegans are eating roadkill.... they refuse to answer for it and haven't had to.Typical first world arrogance.

Obviously the solution to this is to just stop eating. Duh.

Or perhaps we should just stop doing what we're doing as a society and just throw everything away. Convenience? Life? Technology? Economy? Pff, let's all just go live in the mountains without electricity. No matter what we improve or create, there are always naysayers. That way, poor farmers don't have to be targets in this ridiculous argument over "ethics" just trying to feed themselves and their family. I'm not a Twitter user, but what's that hashtag again? #firstworldproblems?

@hello123 that is the most absurd of the arguments. Do you think the people working at cafos and meat processing factories are treated better??? Come on, I know there are better arguments than that.

@username26

"You're trying to separate things that are inseparable. Eating meat requires killing. "

You are completely incorrect. Eating meat does not require killing an animal, just like killing an animal does not require that you eat it. Carnivorous scavengers are a perfect example to demonstrate just how wrong your argument is.

Just because the processes of rearing and slaughtering animals are linked to eating meat due to the way our dietary choices and the way our food system is set up, does not mean that the ethical questions are inseparable. You are choosing to conflate them, because it makes your argument easier.

@calamityayne

""Found dead?" Are you eating roadkill?"

I'm not, but there are people who do, and that is only one way of finding animals who died of natural causes. Your sarcasm doesn't address the point though.