Humans need meat in their diet

The argument

Meat has been part of the human diet for thousands of years, across effectively every society and climate in which humans have lived. Proponents of this position treat that history as evidence rather than as mere custom: a food that has sustained the species throughout its development is not an optional addition to human nutrition but one of the things human bodies are built to use. What it supplies is not narrow. On this argument meat contributes to maintaining a stable weight, to building and holding muscle, and to fuelling the immune system; it supports effective digestion and the production of energy; and it is implicated in healthy skin and bones, in vision, in mental health and in cognitive function. The breadth of that list matters to the case. A food that mattered to one system only could plausibly be substituted or supplemented around the edges; a food woven into weight regulation, immunity, structural tissue and the functioning of the brain is doing work at the foundation of how a body operates, which is what the claim that humans need meat amounts to. The ethical conclusion follows from that necessity. Moral criticism of a practice presupposes that the practice is avoidable — we do not fault people for doing what their survival and health require, and an obligation that cannot be met without damaging oneself is not an obligation anyone can be held to. If eating meat is not a dispensable preference but a genuine nutritional requirement, then the person who eats it is not indulging a taste at an animal's expense; they are meeting a need, and meeting one's own nutritional needs is not the kind of act that carries moral blame. On this reasoning, eating animal products is ethical precisely because the human body's dependence on them is real.

Context

For many years it had been widely accepted that meat was an integral part of the human diet. However, as understanding and consideration for the animals sprung rapidly (the vegan trend quadrupled in the 5 years between 2012 and 2017), the suggestion that we shouldn’t eat meat made people sceptical about what was so bad about meat. Consumption of meat continues to increase however, and don't we need it?

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although meat is useful to us and good to have in our diet, it is not necessary. Many individuals and even entire cultures do not eat animal products. We can lead healthy and long lives just as well without eating animal products as with, so health is not an excuse to eat them.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Humans can live long and healthy lives without animal products, so this is not a reason to eat them.