"Eating chicken is morally worse than killing Cecil the lion"
Dylan Matthews:
If the outcry over the killing of Cecil the lion tells us anything, it’s that people are capable of genuine moral outrage at the needless killing of animals. And good for them. Animals are conscious beings capable of feeling pleasure and pain, and we have an obligation to make their lives as good as possible.
But in a given year, the typical American will cause the death of 30 land animals, and 28 chickens, by eating meat. And these animals aren’t just killed, they effectively live lives of constant torture and suffering — not directly at the hands of the people who eat them, but at the hands of the meat producers who sell them.
The frustration over the killing of Cecil is perfectly acceptable to a certain degree (I’m awfully sad about it), but don’t you dare follow up your protest by picking up a McChicken at the drive thru.
Entire businesses plan, prepare and execute the action of torturing thousands upon thousands of chicken. Fast food in this country is popular because of its accessibility and affordability. I’m not saying it’s right what happens to chickens, but don’t slander what feeds thousands of middle class to lower class citizens and tell them they can’t care about a national symbol of natures beauty and integrity because of it. Pointing fingers doesn’t solve problems.
That’s a curious direction to take the argument, but I’ll bite.
There’s nothing in my post that spoke against the necessity of the accessible and affordable food. I’m sure that’s something we can easily agree on. Nevertheless, there are surely affordable food options that aren’t derived from the grotesque torture of animals.
It’s still important to remind people of the moral implications of a variety of food options out there. That’s what Matthews’ piece in regards to the killing of Cecil the Lion did so well.