Ibraheem Lawal, Graduate, Mechanical Engineering
In a recent discussion I had with a colleague at an exhibition, she highlighted that cruelty to animals has often been enjoyed as a form of sport by humans, particularly bull riding. It is a spectacle in which animals are subjected to a certain level of pain or discomfort to make them aggressive for entertainment. Enjoyable as it may seem to onlookers, such practices stand in contradiction to what the Western ideology often advocates – the conservation of nature and compassion toward animals.
Interestingly, this very ideology has led some Western “extremists” to abstain from eating meat altogether and adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. My colleague also mentioned that she would love to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle in the near future. When I asked why, she explained that she believes animals should be allowed to roam freely, without fear or harm.
I responded by acknowledging that cruelty to animals is indeed inhumane and extreme. I also mentioned how, in some parts of Africa, people make rams fight as a form of entertainment. However, I did not agree with the notion that all animals should roam “freely.” In the animal kingdom, a natural hierarchy exists, a cycle of life in which one species depends on another. Carnivores eat herbivores, and the cycle continues. Every creature has been created for its own purpose and role in sustaining balance.
The Holy Quran beautifully highlights this, stating:
“And the cattle too He has created; you find in them warmth and [other] uses; and some of them you eat.” (Surah an-Nahl, Ch.16: V.6)
In the same way, humans have been created for a higher purpose – to worship God, the Cause of all causes. I was reminded of an article written by a friend, in which he explained the Russell Paradox and how it leads to an infinite regression of reasoning problems: “No doubt, relying solely on logic inevitably leads to problems – the greatest of which is, whose logic should we follow?”
This endless loop exposes the limitations of human intellect, our inability to reach absolute and perfect judgments, for we are bound to err. If we advocate for all animals to live freely, then we alter the balance of nature. This means that, in a way, we stop the lions from preying on the antelope and the antelope from grazing on the grass. This creates a kind of philosophical inconsistency that ultimately leads to extinction.
Returning to the main topic, it is this same cruelty toward animals that has driven people to adopt extreme lifestyles, some abstaining from meat altogether in the name of mercy, while others, on the opposite end, embracing the zero-carb diet, consuming mostly meat. Proponents of each school argue from a philosophical and ethical standpoint that the other diet is not sustainable. For instance, the vegetarians often argue from an extreme negative utilitarian standpoint, arguing that to maximise happiness, we have to completely forgo the “suffering” animals are made to go through.
Porphyry, a Neoplatonic philosopher, was one of the popular proponents of vegetarianism. In his letter to his friend, Castricius Firmus, “On Abstinence from Eating Animals,” he argued that animals are rational beings and justice ought to be extended to them. (Porphyry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals, Bloomsbury, 2000, p. 80) His argument takes the form of the argument from marginal case, a proof by contradiction, which opines that “you cannot coherently believe that all humans have moral status, and that all non-humans lack moral status.”
That is, if we argue that animals can be killed based on their inability to have a concept of self, and to be logically consistent, we need to pass the same judgment towards humans with non-cognitive ability, like the senile, comatose and infants.
A counterargument to this is the argument from species normality, which argues upon the intrinsic property of the “human class”. (“The Argument from Marginal Cases: is Species a Relevant Difference”, researchgate.net, January 2011) While there are some people who, at some point in their lives, may lack the normal cognitive operation or moral agency, they still possess this intrinsic capacity and must be respected and protected.
This logical back and forth, however, does not end there, and each argument continues to be countered. It is interesting to note that Porphyry, however, does not advocate the vegetarian lifestyle for soldiers or athletes – an interesting gap explained by the Promised Messiahas.
In contrast, the carnivore community argue from an extreme human-centred egoism that the natural phenomenon requires that life be sustained by feeding on animals, and that animals lack the moral rectitude or complex mental activity that makes killing them inherently wrong. They often believe that the “good for the self” outweighs every other moral consideration.
A recent proponent of the carnivore diet is Paul Saladino, an American health influencer and former psychiatrist. In his book, The Carnivore Code, he describes plants as “poison” and advocates a meal exclusively based on meat. This has gained popularity even on social media, in modern times, with influencers like Jordan Peterson and his daughter following a strict type of carnivore diet, popularly known as the “lion diet” on TikTok.
Both extremes, as observed by the Promised Messiahas, have psychological effects. Though there may appear to be short-term benefits, long-term consequences reveal imbalances: vegetarians, often lacking certain nutrients, may develop timidity and reduced courage, while excessive meat-eaters may become overly aggressive or suffer a decline in humility and meekness. (The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, pp. 9-10)
The Holy Prophetsa perfectly addressed this by teaching moderation in all aspects of life. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab ar-Riqaq, Hadith 6463) Likewise, the Promised Messiahas advised that human reason should be applied in its proper time and place – not to justify extremes, but to maintain harmony and balance. (The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam, p. 101)
In essence, everything in creation has been designed with a purpose. True wisdom lies in recognising that purpose and living in moderation, neither in excess nor in neglect. And as for where philosophy goes too far, there is no better way to understand its problem save through the lens of religion.