Here are some violations associated with the phrase "happy meat":
- It is designed to pump consumers to buy meat, which is wrong to encourage as eating meat is ethically wrong: it violates animals.
- It violates the truth to say that animals are “meat”. That is like saying a human being is "meat" which people do when they have oppressive attitudes: cynical contempt for those killed in war, oppressive comments on women, and so on. Thinking of animals as "meat" only conduces towards their violation as though it is already a done deal or after the fact. Yet many animal murders for flesh-eating are impending.
- The truth is violated once again because meat is part of a corpse and can be neither happy nor unhappy. It is a logically incoherent notion.
- Finally, Gandhi's twin chief beloved ideals of truth and non-violence are transgressed because the animals themselves are not happy in slaughterhouses, whatever innovations Temple Grandin may have leveraged on some "industries".
P.S. Some people will have well-intended concerns about spikes in meat consumption leading to more suffering and death. But such concerns do not map out a long-term, comparative pattern. To see how this pans out, please read my article linked to here.
FURTHER READING ON ANIMAL RIGHTS INCREMENTALISM
A Selection of Related Articles
Sztybel, David. "Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism". Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1) (2007): 1-37.
Short version of "Animal Rights Law".
Sztybel, David. "Incrementalist Animal Law: Welcome to the Real World".
Sztybel, David. "Sztybelian Pragmatism versus Francionist Pseudo-Pragmatism".
A Selection of Related Blog Entries