New Omnivorism

Animal rights and related notions of animal protection have long been thought to entail a plant-based diet. Increasingly, however, this idea is being challenged by a rival view. According to this competing account, even if animals warrant a high degree of moral standing, we are permitted, or even obliged, to eat meat. This argument comes in a variety of forms. Some maintain that plant harvesting processes actually cause more harm to animals than certain types of free-range animal husbandry. Others make the case that raising animals for food is done humanely, and continuing to eat them will increase overall utility. Still, other arguments for ethical omnivorism invoke plant “neurobiology” to challenge the higher ethical status animal protection theory has traditionally recognized in sentient animals but not in non-sentient plants. A final challenge to the view that animal protection entails not eating meat defends the consumption of cultured meat or meat that originates in a lab. Despite their differences, these arguments all defend a new omnivorism, one that justifies eating meat within a framework of animal protection. This chapter provides an overview of recent arguments for new omnivorism, as well as the accompanying debate over how narrowly or widely the term “new omnivorism” itself should be applied. Although the rise of new omnivorism marks an important shift in the animal ethics literature, most new omnivorist proposals face significant philosophical challenges. The argument for the permissibility of eating cultured meat, however, may be an exception. When it comes to how widely or narrowly the new omnivorism label should be applied, the chapter suggests the wider view is to be preferred.