On the Predation Argument

Abstract

In this paper, I will give a philosophical analysis and defence of the seemingly naive Predation Argument (PA) that since some non-human animals eat other animals, there can be nothing morally wrong with eating meat. I offer a non-trivial formulation of PA based on premises with which a morally-motivated vegan (against whom PA is aimed) would most likely agree and defend these premises against possible objections. Not only does PA turn out to be a valid argument, but from the analysis of it we learn two things. First, we learn that the distinction between moral subjects and moral agents is not as strict as it is usually assumed. Second, we learn that the morality of eating animals does not come down to the moralityof killing them.