This is an all-inclusive argument that we have a positive duty not to consume animal flesh.

This is not a parody. Two bioethicists have argued in the prestigious professional journal Bioethics that we should breed ticks to cause more infections of a condition that causes an allergy to red meat. Seriously.

Why would anyone want ticks to become more dangerous? Meat-eating is wrong, and so anything (apparently) that causes fewer of us to eat meat is “beneficent“:

1. Eating meat is morally wrong.
2. If (1), then eating meat makes people morally worse and makes the world a worse place.
3. So, people would be morally better and the world would be a less bad place if people didn’t eat meat.
4. If an act makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place than it would otherwise be, then that act is morally obligatory. [Corollary of consequentialism]
5. Promoting tickborne AGS [a tickborne syndrome that causes a meat allergy] makes people morally better and makes the world a less bad place.
6. So, promoting tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

Notice that this isn’t a claim about factory farming, but an all-inclusive argument that we have a positive duty not to consume animal flesh.

If people choose to be vegans, more power to them. Acting consistently with one’s moral beliefs is a uniquely human endeavor. But humans are omnivores. Meat is part of our natural diet, offers inexpensive nutrition, is good for us (in proper proportions), and not unimportantly for many, offers an enjoyable eating experience.

The authors’ absolutism causes them to make an immoral argument:

Our main conclusion is that we should promote a particular tickborne syndrome: alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS). AGS is caused by the allergen alpha‐gal, which in humans causes an allergic reaction to eating mammalian meat and mammalian organs. People who have the allergy may have a variety of symptoms, including hives, gastrointestinal upset (e.g., vomiting and diarrhea), or anaphylaxis in severe cases. Often, these symptoms present 2–6 h after ingestion of mammalian meat. However, there is little reason to believe that there are additional harms associated with the allergy, aside from the allergic reaction itself. Although AGS is typically associated with the lone star tick (LST), other ticks also transmit AGS.

No additional harms? Good grief! (I double checked after entering the above quote. This is not a parody.)

The authors spend nine-plus pages of small print setting out various philosophical justifications for their cruel argument. It’s all the kind of hogwash you would expect. They conclude with a few shocking assertions:

We have argued that AGS is a moral bioenhancer and that its promotion is morally obligatory. Among other things, that means that researchers have an obligation to develop the AGS carrying capacity of ticks, and that means human agents are obligated to expose others to AGS (and possibly lone star ticks), not to prevent the spread of AGS or lone star ticks, and to undermine attempts to “cure” AGS. Indeed, given that AGS is a moral bioenhancement with no significant negative effects on human health (so long as one avoids eating meat), it is not a disease and thus cannot be “cured.” [Emphasis added.]

Obviously, this will never happen. So, why post about it? Because when a major professional journal publishes at great length something this ridiculous, it illustrates why “bioethics” should not be considered an area of true expertise. Rather, it is a wholly subjective field in which people express their personal opinions about various issues — some important, some not — related to health care and moral philosophy. These arguments are often gussied up with intellectual references, but in the end, that is all they are: opinions.

Or, as George Orwell famously remarked: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”