This hasn't been an easy decision. Prompted by a paper I had to write for my applied ethics class, I had to look closely at my own views on eating meat. When I started out writing the paper, I was of the mind that eating meat could be an ethical action, dependent on the treatment of the animal. Through lots of reading, pondering, and lengthy discussion/debate with Andrea and Birch, I came to realize that my lines of argument on the issue were flawed. I'm not saying that I am 100% confident that I've come to the absolute correct conclusion, but I do think I'm a lot closer than I was a week ago.
Here's the final draft of the paper I submitted (and yes, it's very short - we're only allowed 260 words to state our argument, support it, object to it, and refute the objection):
Eating non-human animals is ethically wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering in a sentient being. When we eat meat to satisfy a preference, or because we choose not to use other alternatives, we are causing unnecessary suffering. We do not need to eat meat to have a healthy diet, and when we choose to, we are assigning more value to our taste preferences over the preference the animal has to continue to live and to not be inflicted with harm. How can we possibly argue that our dietary preferences are worth more than an animal’s right to life and freedom from unnecessary suffering?
One could try to argue that an animal can be raised in such a way that reduces it’s suffering, and perhaps even allows it to live a “good life”, and in that case killing the animal (in a humane way) for human consumption would not be wrong. However, while this may be a convenient feel-good argument, it does not change the fact that the animal is killed long before its life would have naturally ended, and that cannot be said to satisfy the interests of the animal. Also, we need to ask ourselves what right we have to determine when an animal has lived a long enough life, whether it be good quality or not.