President Trump’s plan to withdrawal the U.S. from the Paris agreement, has brought to light conversations about the utility of various practices that contribute to carbon emissions and environmental degradation. At the forefront of this conversation is a debate over the morality of beef as a staple in Americans’ diets. Were the U.S. to remain in the agreement, switching from beef to beans would nearly bring us to the goal outlined in the accords, a goal which we should strive for because it would enhance the over happiness of all people on earth.
According to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, four million people around the world live a diet of mostly plants. Vegetarianism, or at least a primarily vegetarian diet, is commonplace for these people, and other studies have shown that health is not negatively impacted by this lifestyle. Yet, Americans remained attached to this cultural practice and President Trump has shown his commitment to preserving the success of American meat manufacturers. As outlined in a recent article in Pacific Standard magazine, the issue of beef in international trade, decisions on the matter are not not usually made on the basis of environmental concerns, but on the basis of trade agreements and economic implications.
While legal sanctions exist regulating the food industry in the U.S. via organizations like the FDA, I argue that Americans should implement moral sanctions in favor of vegetarianism because this lifestyle has the greatest potential of happiness for all parties. Whereas the happiness of those consumers of meat is brought about by their consumption alone, the numerous pleasures of life limited by the production meat is cause enough to advocate for its reduction. Among the various pleasures limited by the production of meat are the health of its consumers, the natural beauty of pristine lands, and the adequate nutrition of all.
Red meat has been classified as a class one carcinogen by the World Health Organization. The medical costs associated with resulting cancer, not to mention the physical and emotional suffering, are proof of vegetarianism’s utility. But not only does the consumption of meat limit the happiness of its consumers, but also the rest of the population because of the wastefulness associated with its production. Red meat produces 5 times the climate warming emissions of pork of chicken, and 11 times those of stapes like potatoes, wheat, and rice. The expended energy devoted to the meat production process could have greater utility were it devoted to the production of more food. In fact, I would argue that the utility brought about by less overall hunger in the world far outweighs the happiness of those 2 million consumers of mostly meat. Though it would require a lifestyle adjustment on their part, it would be worth the increased happiness of those 4 million consumers of mostly plants.
Though legal sanctions against red meat would infringe drastically upon the liberties of all individuals, moral sanctions seem an appropriate remedy to rectify the great harm caused by red meat’s production. Because the pleasure created by the consumption of red meat is incomparable to the pain caused by it, we should all strive toward vegetarianism.