Plutarch On The Morality Of Eating Meat

When walking into a modern grocery store, one may find themselves surrounded by multitudes of proteins. Originally this was not the case, due to an increase in meat consumption and production worldwide, animal products are more abundant today than they were in the past. The main factor for the rise in meat products is accessibility, which made animal products more readily available to all social classes. For example, in the past, eating meat was deemed a luxury that common folk could not participate in. In ancient Greece, meat was reserved only for the rich, forcing many people onto a vegetarian diet. During the 1800-1900s meat consumption began to increase, though, it was still not as popular as today. Nowadays, meat is readily available for

In 50 AD, Plutarch, a Greek philosopher, and historian began to question the morality of eating meat due to its inaccessibility. Plutarch both wrote and spoke out against the consumption of meat. One of his most famous pieces was “On the Eating of Flesh” from Moralia a collection of essays and transcribed speeches. Within Moralia, Plutarch claims that, “The beginning of a vicious diet is...followed by all sorts of luxury and expensiveness” (Plutarch, n.d., p.11). Partaking in the luxury that is eating meat is also partaking in a corrupt lifestyle that is primarily for the wealthy. It can be contrived that a man's hunger for meat is not satiated by his morals. Plutarch associates the act of eating meat with one's own wealth and morals. Although Plutarch was fairly hypocritical as he was a rich man himself. He only believed he was superior because he did not eat meat. Plutarch goes on to say, “These same flesh-eatings not only are preternatural to men’s bodies…they render their very minds and intellects gross” (Plutarch, n.d, p.10). Meat consumption is not natural so it harms the people who eat it. Meaning that if higher-class people are eating meat their decision-making skills may be inhibited. This then sustains the class differences because the wealthy would not give up their life of luxury to live as commoners. Plutarch believes that the lives of

Vegetables used to be more accessible compared to meat but nowadays it's the opposite. The population of Earth is significantly more abundant than in the past and this has led to problems with leftover space and being able to grow what is needed. Welin et al., a publisher from 2012, has addressed this predicament we find ourselves in. Their article, “In Vitro Meat: What are the Moral Issues?”, is similar yet different when compared to Plutarch and Shelley. Plutarch and Shelley lived in a time that allowed commoners and the lower class to be able to grow their own food, on the contrary, in 2012 less land is available to make farmland and the meat industry is an enormous powerhouse. Agreeing with this claim, Welin et al commented, “The increase in human population and the expansion of agricultural land. . .there is simply no free space left” (p. 8). Population growth has diminished obtainable farmland thus access to fresh produce. If fresh produce declines the rise of meat increases, as such cheaper meat will be more of an option compared to the more expensive than a “healthier” lifestyle. Society has changed its view of how we consume meat over time; from it being only eaten by the wealthy to present-day growth in labs. Consumption of meat has metamorphosed over time. Plutarch believed that eating meat was against everything that makes us who we are. Likewise, Shelley believed in vegetarianism but the world around him was