On Enlightened Carnivores and Jumbo Shrimp

When Burger King jumped on the happy meat bandwagon, the welfare world was abuzz and very pleased. Remember that I was a (new) welfarist for years, thinking that we’d eventually stop using animals if we stopped abusing them, little by little, over time.

As my husband would say, "Yeah, and how’d that work out for ya?" More animals are being slaughtered in the name of our palate, fashion, and entertainment, than ever before, so my answer is that is didn’t work out well at all. What it did do, and what the BK move will do, is decrease some of the suffering that some of the animals experience. As I’ve written before, this difference in suffering is a qualitative one–a difference in the kind of suffering they feel (their suffering hasn’t been eliminated, and no one claims it has). However, due to "improvements" such as BKs, the suffering of farm animals is likely to increase in quantity, as Americans become convinced that it’s possible to be, as the Houston Chronicle’s editors said, "enlightened carnivores."

But like jumbo shrimp, resident alien, genuine imitation, and happy meat, enlightened carnivorism is an oxymoron. And the editors were, in my opinion, profoundly lax in their editing of their editorial.

Let’s deconstruct:

• When the title is an oxymoron ("Enlightened Carnivores") but the author isn’t using it as such, you’re probably not off to a good start.
• When the subtitle is: "Burger King wants to serve meat without torture," as if that’s possible, you’re certain you’re not off to a good start.
• They say that "cruelty is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to producing the meat most of us buy," but it’s the rule for the meat ALL of us buy. There is no such thing as cruelty-free meat.
• The facts of the BK case are stated and accurate, including that welfare groups believe this is a coup and will ("surely") pressure other factory farms to make similar changes. I’m not "sure" about the pressure part, and I’m even less sure about the coup part.
• The unraveling occurs at the end, with a criminally-misleading final paragraph:
  • "In keeping that conversation going, Burger King shows that ethics can coincide with good business. Few consumers, after all, need or want animals tortured in the service of lunch." First, what definition of "ethics" is being used, here? Does making a tiny qualitative (the type of suffering) and quantitative change (the percentage of "products" with the qualitatively different suffering) equal "ethics?"  That’s an insult to any legitimate notion of ethics.

The last sentence is so offensive and inaccurate I feel compelled to restate it: Few consumers, after all, need or want animals tortured in the service of lunch.

• If few customers need or want animals tortured, that means there are people who want and need animals to be tortured in the service of lunch. Who are these people and why would we for a moment entertain catering to them?
• No one needs animals tortured in the service of lunch.
• No one needs animals slaughtered in the service of lunch.
• If you’re going to needlessly slaughter an animal for lunch, in the scope of things, how much does it matter if you torture them more or less on the way to their needless slaughter?

What defenders of carnivorism clearly don’t understand, is that if you’re killing without necessity, you’ve already crossed the line and you’re in Unethical Land. And nothing about your process of production and slaughter is going to change that.