An Animal Rights/Vegan Activists' Strategies Article used with permission from All-Creatures.org

Bethany Cortale responds to Jon Hochschartner's recent article, which suggested that society will be more receptive to the ethical arguments against killing nonhuman animals for food after the widespread adoption of cultivated meat. Bethany challenges this idea, arguing that the carnist ideology that humans are meant to consume the flesh of nonhuman animals will remain as long as the consumption of meat, regardless of the source, goes unchallenged.

A Rebuttal to Jon Hochschartner’s “Cultivated Meat and Moral Argument”
From Bethany Cortale
March 2026

Image from Canva

In Jon Hochschartner’s latest piece, “Cultivated meat and the moral argument”, he argues that advocating for “cultured meat” does not disavow the ethical argument for nonhuman liberation but will—eventually—change humans’ ethical notions about nonhuman exploitation and oppression.

As an example, Hochschartner points to the development of kerosene as integral to the end of hunting and killing whales for fuel:

“Imagine you’re an activist opposed to whale slaughter. The moral argument against the practice has always been true, is true now, and will forever be true. On a practical level, though, do you think society will be more accepting of your ethical claims before or after the introduction of kerosene, a cheaper alternative to whale oil? The answer, I hope, is obvious. Base affects superstructure.”

Hochschartner refers to the socialist concepts of base and superstructure. Base accounts for the productive forces of society (i.e. tools, materials, factories) while superstructure refers to a society’s belief systems (i.e. laws, religion). The idea is that the base influences the superstructure far more than the opposite.

Hochschartner’s analogy, however, is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Unlike his whale/kerosene example, where the base (fuel) changed from whale flesh to kerosene, the base for “cultured meat” still requires nonhuman flesh (albeit a lot less) as a force of production. Kerosene replaced whale flesh as the materials for fuel; however, “cultured meat” still requires nonhuman bodies and a bloody concoction of nonhuman stem cells.

Therefore, in cloning nonhuman cells to form hamburgers and other pseudo-foods, we continue to promote the taste for nonhuman flesh and reinforce the belief that eating nonhuman people is both desirable and acceptable. As I see it, “cultured meat” constricts the moral and ethical argument for nonhuman liberation because it relies on the over- arching and corrupt premise that nonhuman bodies are a means to an end. While the technology can mercifully eliminate food-industry nonhuman enslavement and slaughter on a grand scale and greatly reduce greenhouse gases (IF humans embrace it!), it still fails to break the entrenched and false carnist ideology that consuming the flesh of nonhumans is normal, natural, and necessary.

As an ethical vegan and Christian, I believe it is wrong to enslave, exploit, and murder God’s creation. I follow the teachings of Jesus to love one another—EVERYONE—and to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I acknowledge the benefits of “cultured meat” in this imperfect, fallen world and the lives it would save, however, make no mistake that this Frankensteinian endeavor that continues to use, manipulate, and experiment with nonhuman bodies for human gluttony and greed is not taking any moral high ground.

If the goal of activists is to achieve legitimate, legal rights for nonhuman people to end their oppression, then the promotion of "cultured meat" is inconsistent with and contrary to recognizing nonhuman people as autonomous individuals and advancing their equal treatment under the law. How can we argue for nonhuman liberation while condoning the unnatural human craving for nonhuman flesh? Furthermore, how can marketing and selling “cultured meat” give humans pause about nonhuman exploitation and oppression when nonhumans are still chattel for such capital ventures?

So, let me finish by asking Hochschartner’s original question again while applying it to “cultured meat”: On a practical level, do you think humans will be more accepting of ethical claims for nonhuman liberation before or after they put another piece of nonhuman lab meat in their mouths? The answer is not so obvious.

---

Posted on All-Creatures.org: March 17, 2026
Return to Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies
Read more at Meat and Dairy Articles