Meat Is Not Murder

Today I was already thinking about how the slogan "Meat is Murder" is problematic when I overheard a young woman talk about writing it on a sign. "Meat is murder" is a popular vegetarian slogan, but is it true? In The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams writes:

The issue of false naming is hidden behind the dichotomy of thinking literally and symbolically. The statement "meat is fragments of dead, butchered animals," or more baldly "meat is murder," speaks the literal truth and calls one away from symbolic thinking. Part of the battle of being heard as a vegetarian is being heard about literal matters in a society of that favors symbolic thinking. By laying claim to speaking literally both the message and the method of vegetarianism are at odds with the dominant viewpoint.

I think Adams make an important point about speaking literally and communicating a message the challenges the dominant viewpoint. But "meat is murder" doesn't speak a literal truth at all, and is more symbolic than Adams would have us believe. Murder is literally a specific crime of unlawfully killing (a human by another), and there's currently nothing unlawful about killing nonhuman animals in order to consume their flesh.

So Adams is actually using "murder" figuratively to refer to the immorality of killing nonhuman animals for their flesh. Perhaps Adams opted for the symbolic term "murder" because it seems to bear more moral weight than the literal term "killing" does. But if this is the case, why should killing have to be criminalized in order to be morally significant?

The increased moral weight attributed to "murder" comes from the fact that it carries a more severe punishment (e.g., life imprisonment or death) than other crimes. By calling forth the criminal punishment system as the standard for talking about violence, falsely naming nonhuman flesh "murder" actually does more to obscure the oppression of nonhuman animals than clarify it. It suggests an intentional and malicious act of interpersonal violence, when the consumption of nonhuman animals is the result of an ideologically-based system of violence.

In getting away from the symbolic and criminalizing thinking of "meat is murder," calling nonhuman flesh – as well as all other products derived from exploiting nonhuman animals – privilege moves towards a way of thinking that is both literal and liberation-based. Privilege better describes the ideologically-based political structure of human supremacy under which humans exploit other animals. It also gets away from the false divide between nonhuman animals exploited for their flesh and those who are exploited for their milk, eggs, hair, or some other material or psychological benefit. If flesh could be taken from other animals without (immediate) killing – like milk, eggs, and hair are – then it would be. That is, the material benefit (privilege), and not the killing ("murder"), is the logic behind turning nonhuman animals into "meat."