Q&A: The Morality of Eating Fish
The Morality of Eating Fish
Question
I wanted to ask whether it is moral to eat fish.
A. Is it true that raising them is much less morally horrible than raising cattle, chickens, etc.?
B. Beyond that, fish are animals that are much less emotionally and cognitively developed, etc., and it seems that even if there is suffering, it is far less significant.
Assuming they also undergo much less suffering and that their farming is much less horrible, can that morally justify eating them?
Answer
A. I’m not knowledgeable about this, but people who know the field claim there are serious problems with both fish farming and fishing as well. Of course, it probably depends on the type of fish and where and how it is raised. You’d have to check with people who really know.
B. Possibly. I have no way of knowing.
Under those assumptions, it’s obviously more justified than eating meat. But I can’t see it as absolutely justified as long as there is any suffering at all. Each person according to the level of morality he has in mind.
Discussion on Answer
There is no way to explain values. They are determinations a person grasps in his conscience (moral intuition). Values are ethical axioms. Ethical instructions are explained on their basis, but they themselves cannot be grounded in something more fundamental, just like axioms in any field.
The principles of morality say that a human being has moral status and a dog does not. Therefore, refraining from harming a dog is not because of its rights, but because of my duty not to cause suffering. With regard to a human being, he has a right not to be harmed. Therefore he takes precedence over a dog.
I’m a bit uncomfortable ranking how moral it is to kill an animal based on its level of consciousness and emotion, though when it comes to animals it’s still somewhat easier.
The definition of a human being as someone who speaks or has intellect and understanding doesn’t sit well with me, because there are people who don’t speak or communicate—so are they not human beings? How does morality work in that context? For that matter, what does morality say about choosing to save a dog or a human being if there’s only a possibility to save one of them? I mean, it’s very obvious that it should be the human being, but it’s hard to really explain why.