APA Citation:
Diamond, C. (1978). Eating meat and eating people. Philosophy, 53(206), 465-479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100026334
Summary of “Eating Meat and Eating People” by Cora Diamond
1. Context and Motivation
Cora Diamond’s paper is a response to ethical arguments that advocate for animal rights, particularly those put forth by Peter Singer and Tom Regan. Singer and Regan argue that species-based discrimination, or “speciesism,” is analogous to racism and sexism and that animals deserve moral consideration similar to that given to humans. Diamond critiques this position, arguing that such a comparison oversimplifies human-animal relationships and overlooks fundamental distinctions between how humans treat each other versus how they relate to animals.
2. Key Concepts and Definitions
- Speciesism: A term used by Singer and others to describe discrimination based on species membership, similar to racism and sexism.
- Fellow Creature: Diamond introduces the idea that humans see some animals as “fellow creatures,” influencing how they treat them, rather than basing ethical considerations solely on rational capacities or suffering.
- Moral Standing: She critiques the idea that moral consideration should be based purely on the ability to suffer, arguing instead that cultural and conceptual frameworks shape how humans view the moral status of animals.
3. Main Findings
Diamond challenges the logic of Singer and Regan’s arguments by pointing out inconsistencies in human treatment of both animals and other humans. She highlights:
- The social and symbolic significance of not eating humans, which is not simply about rights but about cultural practices and conceptions of human identity.
- The fact that many vegetarians and animal rights advocates fail to address why eating already-dead animals (such as roadkill) still feels morally troubling, indicating that something deeper than mere suffering is at play.
- The importance of the concept of “fellow creature” in ethical reasoning, which suggests that moral concerns about animals arise from cultural and emotional factors rather than abstract principles.
4. Data Sources
This paper is philosophical in nature and does not rely on empirical data. Instead, Diamond engages in a critical analysis of ethical theories, drawing from philosophical literature, cultural practices, and literary examples, including poetry and fiction, to illustrate her points.
5. Methodological Approach
Diamond employs conceptual analysis and philosophical argumentation to critique the assumptions underlying animal rights advocacy. She contrasts utilitarian and rights-based ethics with an alternative view that emphasizes cultural and linguistic practices in shaping moral attitudes toward animals. She also uses literary and everyday examples to illustrate the complexities of human-animal relationships.
Evaluation of Eating Meat and Eating People by Cora Diamond
1. Strengths of the Paper
a) Deep Philosophical Critique of Animal Rights Discourse
One of the paper’s major strengths is its rigorous challenge to the arguments put forward by prominent animal rights theorists like Peter Singer and Tom Regan. While much of the animal rights debate hinges on comparisons between speciesism and other forms of discrimination (such as racism and sexism), Diamond demonstrates how these analogies oversimplify the moral and conceptual distinctions between humans and animals.
b) Emphasis on Cultural and Linguistic Dimensions
Diamond introduces a unique perspective by emphasizing how human relationships with animals are shaped by cultural, linguistic, and symbolic factors rather than merely rational considerations of suffering and rights. This approach highlights the limitations of purely utilitarian or rights-based frameworks in explaining moral intuitions about meat consumption and animal treatment.
c) Exposing the Inconsistencies in Animal Rights Arguments
The paper compellingly demonstrates how certain animal rights positions lead to conclusions that seem counterintuitive or unpalatable. For instance, if ethical vegetarianism is based solely on the principle of minimizing suffering, why should a vegetarian object to eating an animal that died naturally? Similarly, the argument that humans should not eat animals because they suffer does not fully address why humans also refrain from eating human corpses, even when there is no issue of suffering.
d) Use of Literature and Everyday Examples
Rather than relying purely on abstract moral theory, Diamond incorporates poetry, literature, and ordinary human behaviors (such as naming pets and performing funerals) to illustrate the complexity of human-animal relationships. This approach adds depth to her argument and makes her critique more accessible.
2. Weaknesses of the Paper
a) Lack of a Clear Ethical Alternative
While Diamond effectively dismantles Singer and Regan’s arguments, she does not offer a fully developed alternative ethical framework. She argues that human morality is shaped by cultural practices rather than abstract principles, but she does not articulate clear ethical guidelines regarding how animals should be treated. Her critique, while sharp, leaves open the question of whether there can be a coherent ethical justification for vegetarianism beyond cultural attitudes.
b) Potential Relativism
By emphasizing the role of culture and tradition in shaping moral attitudes toward animals, Diamond’s argument runs the risk of moral relativism. If ethical treatment of animals is primarily determined by cultural norms, does this mean that any practice—such as factory farming or hunting—could be justified if it aligns with a given society’s traditions? The paper does not fully address how to distinguish between cultural practices that should be challenged and those that should be respected.
c) Underestimation of Ethical Consistency in Animal Rights
Diamond suggests that the Singer-Regan approach ignores significant aspects of human-animal relationships. However, many animal rights philosophers would argue that cultural traditions should be examined critically, just as past traditions of slavery, gender inequality, and caste systems have been reassessed over time. Diamond’s focus on cultural embeddedness might be seen as resisting such moral progress rather than facilitating it.
d) Insufficient Engagement with Practical Ethical Dilemmas
Although Diamond critiques Singer and Regan’s approach, she does not deeply engage with the practical implications of her argument. If our attitudes toward eating meat are based on cultural and linguistic conventions, should those conventions be reformed? Should we expand our notion of “fellow creature” to include all animals, or only some? These questions remain unanswered.
Potential Biases and Overall Impact of Eating Meat and Eating People
1. Potential Biases in Diamond’s Argument
a) Bias Against Utilitarianism and Rights-Based Approaches
Diamond’s critique is heavily directed at utilitarian and rights-based moral reasoning, particularly the views of Peter Singer and Tom Regan. While she effectively exposes the limitations of these frameworks, she does not fully engage with their potential strengths. For instance, utilitarianism has been widely used to address large-scale ethical issues, such as poverty reduction and public health, in ways that go beyond the simplistic moral calculus she critiques. Similarly, rights-based arguments have successfully shaped human rights discourse, suggesting they may have valid applications in the realm of animal ethics as well.
b) Implicit Anthropocentrism
Although Diamond critiques simplistic distinctions between humans and animals, her argument remains rooted in an implicit anthropocentrism. She focuses on the human conceptualization of what makes animals morally relevant—whether as “fellow creatures” or as part of human cultural practices—rather than considering animals’ intrinsic interests. This approach risks reinforcing human-centered perspectives rather than challenging them.
c) Possible Overemphasis on Cultural Traditions
By stressing the role of cultural and linguistic traditions in shaping attitudes toward animals, Diamond risks providing a justification for the status quo. While she does not explicitly endorse meat-eating, her critique of moral arguments against it could be interpreted as a defense of existing practices rather than a call for ethical reform. This could be seen as a conservative bias, resisting moral progress in favor of preserving traditional conceptual distinctions.
d) Selective Use of Examples
Diamond employs literary and everyday examples to illustrate her argument, but her selection of examples is somewhat one-sided. For instance, she highlights the discomfort humans feel about eating human corpses to challenge Singer’s logic but does not explore analogous cases where moral shifts have occurred—such as the changing views on hunting, fur farming, or even human burial practices. A more balanced examination might have considered whether cultural practices surrounding meat consumption are as immutable as she suggests.
2. Overall Impact on Ethical Vegetarianism and Animal Rights
a) Challenging the Dominant Discourse
Diamond’s critique has had a significant impact on animal ethics by challenging the dominant utilitarian and rights-based frameworks. Her argument forces ethicists to reconsider simplistic analogies between speciesism and other forms of discrimination and to acknowledge the complexity of human-animal relationships.
b) Contribution to Wittgensteinian Moral Philosophy
Her emphasis on cultural and linguistic practices aligns with a broader Wittgensteinian approach to ethics, which views moral reasoning as embedded in forms of life rather than as deriving from abstract principles. This perspective has influenced later discussions in moral philosophy, particularly among those who question the applicability of universal moral rules.
c) Influence on Ethical Vegetarianism
While Diamond herself is a vegetarian, her critique of traditional vegetarian arguments has led some to reframe their justifications. Instead of relying purely on suffering-based or rights-based arguments, contemporary defenses of vegetarianism have incorporated relational, virtue-based, and care ethics perspectives—many of which owe a conceptual debt to Diamond’s work.
d) Continuing Relevance in Modern Debates
With the rise of concerns about factory farming, climate change, and ethical consumption, Diamond’s argument remains relevant. While she does not advocate for vegetarianism based on Singer’s reasoning, her work raises important questions about how human traditions, emotions, and social structures shape moral attitudes toward animals. Contemporary discussions about lab-grown meat, for example, resonate with her critique, as they challenge cultural norms about what counts as “natural” food.
Final Thoughts
Cora Diamond’s Eating Meat and Eating People is a provocative and influential work that reshapes how we think about moral obligations toward animals. By challenging the dominant philosophical justifications for vegetarianism and animal rights, she forces us to confront the deeper cultural and conceptual frameworks that govern our attitudes toward meat consumption. However, her argument is not without its weaknesses, particularly in its lack of a clear ethical alternative and its potential for reinforcing the status quo.
Ultimately, Diamond does not provide a direct answer to the question of whether eating meat is right or wrong—but she deepens the debate by showing that moral considerations about animals are far more complex than the standard arguments suggest. Her work remains essential reading for those engaged in animal ethics, moral philosophy, and the broader discussion of how we relate to non-human beings.