Is fish actually made of meat? How exactly does this remotely correlate to any form of justice?  Contrary to one’s belief, the former question is actually debated, and the outcome of the former question can be considered as procedural justice in that vegetarians have the right to know whether they are following their code of ethics. From the research I have piled up, my conclusion is that, due to religious and scientific beliefs, fish is not made of meat.

Religion has played a large part of many peoples’ lives. It has dictated lifestyles, chosen Kings, executed people, and even formed set diets. Christianity, the world’s most populous religion, is not exempt from the previous statement. Christians are allowed to eat all that God has to offer; however, there exists an exception. In Christianity, there exists a season in which one makes preparation for Easter by fasting; Lent. In the season of Lent, one refrains from eating meat, such as poultry. However, there exists one type of flesh which Christians are allowed to eat during Lent, fish.(Fairchild) After much controversy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, abstinence laws state that fish to not be included in same category as other animals.(Good Question) As to why, the Church thinks that way, one will learn why in the upcoming paragraphs. Based on this one piece of evidence, one can conclude that the majority of Christians should believe that fish is not meat. However, Christianity is not the only religion which shares the same views.

Fasting is not the only reason to ignore specific food products. In the second largest religion in the world, Islam, many religious rules were set into place. Such rules included the widely known rule that Muslims are not allowed to eat pork, or any type of pig. However, a lesser known rule is that Muslims are not permitted to eat anything bloody or raw; it must be sanitized and cooked in some sort of fashion. This religious law goes for any type of meat, besides the obvious pig. However, muslims are allowed to eat fish without qualms to how it was cooked. As a muslim who has read the Quran multiple times, memorized several verses, and fully put to use the religious laws, I am living proof of the previously stated laws. Another proof is in the Quran itself, as those laws are clearly stated as “I do not find in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden for an eater to eat of except that it be what has died of itself, or blood poured forth, or flesh of swine”. Furthermore, the Quran goes on to state that “the sea subject... may [be] eaten thereof flesh that is fresh and tender”.(Halal and Haram Food in the Quran) This directly states that the tender and fresh meat from fish is edible; fish can be eaten raw and uncooked. While meat has to be cleansed and purified, fish can be eaten in any way. While these religious evidences might bring over a few people, what about those who believe only in logistics?

As stated before, there are many debates as to whether fish is or isn’t meat. However stubborn one may have been, he has to admit there are some reasons as to why fish could not be meat. The three main logical reasons as to why fish is not meat is because it: one, belongs to a different species of animals, lives underwater, and has a different texture than other types of flesh. Even Christianity used the second reason for justification of it’s actions. However, the most common forms of meat, the ones which are not  delicacies, come from the mammalian class. Fish, however, come from their own class. The Christian justification, come from the fact that animals live either on land or in water. Even flying animals have to rest somewhere, be it on land or in the water. The last proof, while scientific, is based on one’s own sense. Many people tend to differentiate the texture of fish and other meat, like chicken, with ease. This creates a personal distinction between the two. Scientists have gone so far to name species which can only eat fish and people who diet off of only fish based meals pescetarians.(Hackett) However, there still exist some people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of pescetarians.

The people who tend to fight over this debate tend to be people who stick to their guns and, more importantly, people who have strict religious beliefs. Most of the people who, from my experience, believe that fish is meat, are people who believe in Hinduism. As Hindus hold nature in esteem, they believe that eating animals are bad for one’s self. However, this is where word sense and ethics come into conflict. As meat does not exactly mean flesh, living beings’ flesh does not mean edible meat. As fish are living creature, Hindus are not permitted to eat them; they are in the truest sense vegetarians. However, if vegetarians, who didn’t believe in  Hinduism, were to say they couldn’t eat meat, they could still, if their diet allowed it, could eat fish. In most debates, there is not a correct answer, but rather, an answer one fully confides himself in. The answer is usually determined due to cultural and ethical factors.

If one was to look at the question of fish being meat through the eyes of an Christian, Islamic or Realist, one would believe that fish is not meat. There is never a correct answer in life, always a “better” answer. Procedural justice helps in determining the better answer. No matter if one focuses on a religious, ethical, or depressing topic, the correct answer is the one that people confide themselves in.