Humane Slaughter?

I've just watched an interview with Peter Singer (one of my heroes) on YouTube, which was originally broadcast on BBC1 some time ago. Whilst it was mainly focused around his (rightly) controversial view that infanticide should be a common practice, there was some conversation between him and the interviewer about his stance on animal rights. Peter Singer has been at the intellectual forefront of the animal liberation movement, starting with the publication of his book by the same name in 1975. I have often been thankful to him for providing an eloquent and well informed voice to animal rights activists, who normally suffer from quite a negative public image.

However, something Singer stated in the interview rather worried me. Whilst I was somewhat disturbed by his lack of passion or conviction throughout the conversation, it was his response when asked if he would still object to the practice of eating meat if it were done in a humane, painless way, that caused me some surprise. He simply stated that he would 'not have many objections' (this may be a misquote, I wasn't paying the most attention, but it was something to that effect).

It is odd how I have derived most of my beliefs concerning animals from his views and his writings, yet I would have had quite a different answer to that question. I do not understand how, as the leader of the speciesism revolution, he would not be vehemently against eating meat in all forms.

My personal beliefs entail me to see the eating of animal flesh as unnatural and immoral, whether done painlessly or not. The mere fact that we humans are consistently shown to live longer and be healthier when eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet, should point to the simple fact that eating meat is not a necessary practice. Unlike a feline, who needs meat to survive, we in fact prosper without it. The only benefit it gives us that (in some opinions) is difficult to replace is the nice taste we have in our mouths for just a few minutes. Therefore, there is no reason why we should ascribe ourselves the right to prematurely take the lives of unconsenting animals for our own shallow pleasures. Regardless of the levels of pain during slaughter (currently the slaughter process is disgusting and traumatising), we have no right to take the lives of other creatures that are of equal moral worth as us humans. We should not equate a kinship amongst our own species with a superiority over others. Yes, the slaughter process may feasibly be changed to kill animals in a way that diminishes all suffering (although this is probably never going to happen), but this does not endow us the right to murder.