Many of us struggle when it comes to justifying why or why not we eat meat. Some of us might think “Animals are living and feel pain. Just because they aren’t as evolved as us doesn’t mean we should exploit them.” On the other hand, some might believe “It is natural for humans to eat animals. It is the circle of life.” In summary, many of us find ourselves lost in a wormhole of beliefs justifying why or why not to eat meat. This is because facts and logic aren’t always able to convince us alone.

Humans don’t know everything.

Sorry to break it to you, but we have not been here since the beginning of everything. We do not know why and how everything works. Because we were not there at the beginning of the universe, we must interpret the evidence from the past to determine what happened. We interpret the evidence through our worldview, or religion.

When logical evidence fails us, we turn to spiritualism. For example, the topic of The Death Penalty. Many people are polarized on this topic and can not come to a conclusion based on facts and logic alone. That‘s where spirituality comes in. Someone who is catholic would automatically say no to The Death Penalty because it is their religious view. They derive their beliefs from what they morally interpret to be right and wrong. Spiritualism can even be used on the topic of vegetarianism and is even more useful than facts when it comes to these types of decisions.

Many religions have different beliefs on whether one should or should not eat meat. For example, one spiritual belief regarding animals is “Ahimsa.” “Ahimsa, or 'Dynamic Compassion' is a principle of non-harming and non-violence. Human behaviour that violates this ethical principle is seen, not only as morally wrong, but also as its original perspective as negative karma that reverts back onto the person responsible for the harm or violence done”(Vaughan par. 1). This religious view is a spiritual interpretation of how animals and humans must coexist. Relying on a religious practice instead of facts alone is proved to be much more convincing for many people. This spiritual interpretation is derived from ethics.

Some religious belief systems, such as christianity, even expand on the topic of whether or not we should eat meat into whether or not we should own pets. ¨When you take in an animal as a pet, it’s not just for your pleasure. You are giving that animal an opportunity to develop spiritually” (Martin par. 1). This religious belief is a different way to interpret animal treatment in the absence of facts. In this case, the interpretation comes from morals.

Other religions believe that humans should, in fact, eat meat: “When Islamic civilization spread into Asia in the eighth century, meat-eating became an important symbol of difference, separating them from the predominantly vegetarian Buddhist and Hindu faiths and practices”(Strivistrava par. 6). This is another example of how spirituality or a religious practice can more convincingly provide the answers to difficult moral dilemmas.

A fact follower simply has no argument against the validity of this claim because as humans, we do not have all the facts. The only choice humans have is religious interpretation. Spirituality has proven to be more useful because many those who turn to religious views have confident support in their decisions. Instead of just deriving our beliefs from facts, we can decide through our morals and ethical beliefs.