A Novel Argument for Vegetarianism? Zoopolitics and Respect for Animal Corpses

Josh Milburn

doi:10.14453/asj/v9.i2.10

Abstract

This paper offers a novel argument against the eating of meat: the zoopolitical case for vegetarianism. The argument is, in brief, that eating meat involves the disrespect of an animal’s corpse, and this is respect that the animal is owed because they are a member of our political community. At least three features of this case are worthy of note. First, it draws upon political philosophy, rather than moral philosophy. Second, it is a case for vegetarianism, and not a case for veganism. Third, while it is animal-focussed, it does not rely upon a claim about the wrong of inflicting death and suffering upon animals. The paper sets out the argument, responds to two challenges (that the argument is merely academic, and that the argument does not go far enough), and concludes by comparing the case to Cora Diamond’s classic argument for vegetarianism.

Highlights

This paper offers a novel argument against the eating of meat: the zoopolitical case for vegetarianism
It is my contention that we can find a plausible case for vegetarianism – one that does not become a case for veganism – by drawing upon work in the recent ‘political turn’ in animal ethics, which is the emergence of animal-ethical work drawing upon the language and resources of political philosophy, rather than moral philosophy
We should not be eating meat made from the bodies of domesticated animals; not because of the harms involved in meat production, but because, in so doing, we fail to extend respect to the corpses of co-members of our community