Is It Morally Wrong to Use Roadkill If You Did Not Cause the Animal’s Death?
I oppose deliberately killing animals, raising them for slaughter, or creating commercial demand for animals to be killed for food, leather, tools, or other products. If someone intentionally hits an animal and then pretends it was an accident so they can use the body, that is still deliberately killing an animal, and I consider it morally wrong.
But if an animal is accidentally killed and someone who had nothing to do with its death safely and legally uses its meat, hide, bones, sinew, or other remains, I do not consider that morally equivalent to causing or purchasing its death. The person did not kill the animal, request that it be killed, or financially encourage another animal to be killed. The same reasoning can apply to secondhand animal materials. Buying an existing cowhide from a thrift store is not the same economic action as purchasing a newly produced hide from an industry that raises or kills animals.
I also recognize that leaving a carcass in nature is not automatically waste. Carrion feeds scavengers, insects, fungi, bacteria, and soil organisms, making decomposition an important part of nutrient cycling. I am not arguing that humans should collect every dead animal or deprive wildlife of food. My question is why an animal consuming carrion is considered natural and morally acceptable, while responsible human use is automatically considered immoral. I also see no inherent moral problem with safely preparing suitable portions for other animals when appropriate. Questions about disease, contamination, traffic hazards, local wildlife needs, and collection laws are legitimate practical concerns, but they are separate from the underlying ethical question.
Economic circumstances matter too. Although inexpensive plant-based staples such as beans, lentils, rice, oats, and chickpeas exist, manufactured substitutes such as plant-based burgers, eggs, and milk frequently cost more than their conventional counterparts. Market data continues to show price premiums for plant-based substitutes, while USDA data shows that food consumes a much larger share of income for low-income households. People living under monetary market economics generally require money to access food, shelter, land, transportation, and tools. Using an already available resource to eat, make a necessary tool, or earn enough to survive does not automatically mean that someone supports animal exploitation or endorses the economic system in which they are required to live.
Some people believe any human use of an animal’s body is inherently wrong, regardless of how the animal died. Others focus on suffering, causation, commercial demand, necessity, waste, and ecological context. Where do you draw the ethical line on using roadkill, and why? I want to understand the reasoning behind different perspectives, not argue about dietary labels or judge anyone personally. Please explain your complete position in your initial response so the different views can be compared fairly.
Supporting information:
USDA data shows that in 2024, households in the lowest income group spent approximately 33 percent of their before-tax income on food:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending
Good Food Institute market data reports that a price gap between plant-based and conventional meat products continues to exist:
https://gfi.org/resource/analyzing-plant-based-meat-and-seafood-sales/
Scientific research describes carrion decomposition as important to ecosystem functioning and nutrient cycling:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11968553/
I want to hear different perspectives, especially from vegans and people concerned with animal welfare, about the ethics of using roadkill. This is not about my diet or what label anyone believes I should use. It is about the ethical principle itself.
@CradleDuck
Is it morally wrong to use roadkill if you did not cause the animal’s death?
Dear Beloved,
It may suggest that the person lacks compassion for the painful death an animal has gone through. Instead, they may be focused on using the animal's remains. How much suffering has that body gone through? The circumstances surrounding its death can understandably have an emotional impact on those who think about it.
I appreciate that you have compassion and that you oppose deliberately killing animals, raising them for slaughter, or creating commercial demand for animals to be killed for food, leather, tools, or other products.
It is morally wrong, in my view, to deliberately kill an animal to use it.
Someone who had nothing to do with its death and safely and legally uses its meat, hide, bones, sinew, or other remains may be perceived as showing less compassion or grief for an animal that died in painful circumstances. This may suggest that the person is focused primarily on the use of the remains rather than the circumstances of the animal's death. It may be difficult for us to know what another person feels, but the animal's crushed body, bleeding, trauma, and suffering deserve compassion. It was not a natural death. An accidental death can involve severe pain and trauma. No living being would willingly choose such a painful experience.
I appreciate your understanding of the role of carrion in nature.
Animals consuming carrion is a natural behaviour, and I would not judge animals by the same moral standards we apply to humans. Animals can experience pain and may respond to the distress of other animals. Animals may experience and express emotions differently from humans, but that does not mean they lack feelings or understanding.
Roadkilled animals should be treated with respect and, where practical and legally permitted, handled or buried with dignity. If someone's pet dies in a road accident, would they think about using the body, or would they first grieve the loss and honour the animal? Think about their emotions and trauma over the loss of their companion. Then, why should those feelings be any different when the animal is a stray? They struggled throughout their lives for food, love, safety, and more. Now, when they have died in suffering, instead of first acknowledging their pain and loss, we may find ourselves pondering how their remains can be used. If a person can have the same compassion and respect for a road-killed stray as they would for their own pet, that reflects a strong sense of ethics.
It may reflect a lack of love or compassion if the animal is viewed merely as a body to be used rather than as a life that has been lost.
Animals can experience emotions and may respond to the distress of others. Animal parents can show behaviours suggesting attachment and responses to the distress of their young. But it is a shame that, despite being human, some of us may fail to show the same compassion. Such a person may be perceived as having a cold heart. In my view, I would consider such behaviour unethical.
I respect your perspective and compassion towards animals. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I have shared my perspective. I am not trying to impose my views on you. Please consider it my thoughts on the subject.