Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress

Abstract

Despite its potential for radically reducing the harm inflicted on nonhuman animals in the pursuit of food, there are a number of objections grounded in animal ethics to the development of in vitro meat. In this paper, I defend the possibility against three such concerns. I suggest that worries about reinforcing ideas of flesh as food and worries about the use of nonhuman animals in the production of in vitro meat can be overcome through appropriate safeguards and a fuller understanding of the interests that nonhuman animals actually possess. Worries about the technology reifying speciesist hierarchies of value are more troublesome, however. In response to this final challenge, I suggest that we should be open not just to the production of in vitro nonhuman flesh, but also in vitro human flesh. This leads to a consideration of the ethics of cannibalism. The paper ultimately defends the position that cannibalism simpliciter is not morally problematic, though a great many practices typically associated with it are. The consumption of in vitro human flesh, however, is able to avoid these problematic practices, and so should be considered permissible. I conclude that animal ethicists and vegans should be willing to cautiously embrace the production of in vitro flesh.

Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: An Updated Review (2018–2020)

“…Whilst there is no difference in principle in the morality of eating cultured meat from a pig or cultured meat from a dog, it is clear that the non-normalness of the latter means it is something that far fewer people would want to do. This finding is important because it suggests that, whilst discussions about cultured meat from unusual species and even "ethical cannibalism" [65] are philosophically interesting, products from non-traditional meat species are unlikely to find a large consumer base, and may arouse or exacerbate moral concerns with cultured meat.…”

Veganism, Moral Motivation and False Consciousness

“…Narrow false consciousness, on the other hand, may be tackled directly by promoting some of the benefits of plant-based living (Fetissenko 2011 ), or indirectly by creating the conditions that normalise such a lifestyle (Lumsden 2017 ), for example, by making the shift from animal to plant agriculture easier and more desirable for farmers, or through the technological development of realistic alternatives to culling animals (e.g. in vitro meat; see Milburn 2016 ). A drawback of the self-interest approach, however, is that it only favours animals contingently in those instances where enlightened human self-interest happens to be convergent with those of animals.…”

Promises of meat and milk alternatives: an integrative literature review on emergent research themes

“…For Pluhar (2010), this means that it is difficult to find objections to cultured meat if it would be affordable and available to all, and if the animals involved would be treated with the utmost respect. There exists, however, intense debate in ethics regarding whether cell-based meat alternatives are problematic in terms of animal dignity (Milburn 2018(Milburn , 2016Schaefer and Savulescu 2014;Cole and Morgan 2013;Chauvet 2018). Animals are still in some instances used to produce fetal bovine serum, extracted from unborn fetuses in slaughtered pregnant cows as a by-product of dairy production (van der Valk et al 2018).…”

“…Schaefer and Savulescu (2014) suggest that an ethical version of cell-based meat should promote the simultaneous strengthening of 'happy farming' practices. Whereas, Laestadius (2015) argues that the development of cellbased alternatives is only ethical if they are more effective (Majima 2014;Milburn 2016;Schaefer and Savulescu 2014).…”