Why "Happy Meat" Is Always Wrong

This essay attacks the “happy meat” position head-on. It argues that this position is morally indefensible and that it not only causes immense amounts of suffering, but also, somewhat ironically, serves as the very foundation of our abuse of non-human beings today. This reveals the moral urgency of stopping the spread of this position and of rejecting it completely. More

This essay attacks the “happy meat” position head-on. It argues that this position is morally indefensible, and that it not only causes immense amounts of suffering, but also, somewhat ironically, serves as the very foundation of our abuse of non-human beings today, and that this is all it ever can. This reveals the moral urgency of stopping the spread of this position and of rejecting it completely.

How do we reject it? This essay is a good place to start.



"Magnus Vinding argues powerfully against eating "happy meat"." — Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, author of 'The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty' and 'Animal Liberation'.



"Like child abuse, animal abuse can be practised with more or less cruelty. Magnus Vinding argues persuasively that we shouldn't be doing it all. In his latest work, Vinding explores the insidious concept of "happy meat" – a tribute to the human capacity for self-deception. Harming other sentient beings should not be a life-style choice in any civilised society." — David Pearce, founder of BLTC Research and co-founder of Humanity+, author of 'The Hedonistic Imperative'.