Why "Happy Meat" Is Always Wrong

The "happy meat" position does not challenge our large-scale mistreatment of non-human beings, but rather serves to support it. That is among the core claims of this essay, which argues that the rejection of the "happy meat" position is critical if we are to end the extreme horrors that humanity inflicts upon other animals.

"Magnus Vinding argues powerfully against eating 'happy meat'." — Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, author of The Life You Can Save 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 at 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 lifestyle choice in any civilised society." — David Pearce, author of The Hedonistic Imperative