![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ed_rexAs I think I've mentioned before, I've dropped about 30 pounds in the past six months. The process began as the silver lining to the cloud of misery that was my break-up with Laura - for once, sadness and rage led me to eat less instead of more.
When I realized what was going on, though, I started paying attention to my diet. More to the point, with how much I was eating, not what I was eating, since I have always eaten well. Living on Kraft Dinner and potato chips has never been my style.
That said, the quality of my diet has changed in a couple of significant ways since I stopped cooking for two. On the one hand, I've been eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, along with such things as granola, nuts and cheese, while on the other, I have been eating much less meat, largely because - used to cooking for two people - what I would cook would far too often go bad in the fridge.
I have by no means become a vegetarian (let alone a vegan), but having now often gone days in a row without the flesh of an animal passing through my gullet, I have come to the gut-level realization that vegetarianism is not an impossibility for me.
A couple of weeks ago, fadefromnothing posted an impassioned rant about the evils of carnivorism. From a strictly pragmatic point-of-view, I thought her piece was poor propaganda - too easy to dismiss it as "emotional" (that the argument, that basing a belief on one's feelings is "irrational" is bogus is an argument for another time) - but I had a hard time rebutting the rational arguments that underlay her feelings. In fact, I found it impossible to do so.
Getting away from the anger underlying that post, I find three basic points to Sidra's argument:
(Sidra further compared our modern willingness to torture and slaughter our fellow (thinking and feeling) animals to women's rights, slavery and concentration camps. And, though the comparisons may seem over-the-top to you, when you think about it, the idea is hard (impossible?) to rebut.)
Last Saturday, after my friend Vernski and I had talked ourselves out about Borat, I paraphrased Sidra's post, and described my discomfort in the fact I had been unable to argue against it.
Now Vernski, despite his long-term co-habitation with a vegetarian, is to my mind notoriously carnivorous. Where I make stir-fries, he broils thick, bloody steaks.
And so I was more than a little surprised when he agreed with me (and with Sidra).
Yes, he said, there is no justification for eating meat, no more than there was for the slave trade in the 18th century, or than there is now for sex tours of daycare centres in Thailand.
And yet, we both acknowledged, that this intellectual understanding of a moral fact was not going to stop either of us from frying up some bacon in the morning.
I like to think that I am a pretty good human being. I try not to lie, I make a point of not taking advantage of the weak or vulnerable and on at least a couple of occasions I have fought down fear and put my face on the line to protect a stranger from possible violence by people who could most likely have easily broken my body the way a child smashes her grand-mother's antique china tea-cup.
Long story short, Vernski and I agreed that eating meat is wrong. And yet we also agreed we will both continue to consume the flesh of what were once living, thinking and feeling creatures, into the foreseable future.
If you grant (as I do) that he and I are at the very least reasonably good people, how do you explain our willingness to engage in a practice we both agree is - in a word - evil? How is it that I am not emotionally tortured by the dichotomy between what I think and what I feel?
[Edit: According to this month's Harper's, "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warned that livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep and chickens are among the world's top three environmental threats:the agency said that livestock production, largely driven by the demand for meat, pollutes water, destroys biodiversity, and, when the entire production cycle is taken into account, produces more greenhouse gases than the transportation sector."]
When I realized what was going on, though, I started paying attention to my diet. More to the point, with how much I was eating, not what I was eating, since I have always eaten well. Living on Kraft Dinner and potato chips has never been my style.
That said, the quality of my diet has changed in a couple of significant ways since I stopped cooking for two. On the one hand, I've been eating a lot more fruits and vegetables, along with such things as granola, nuts and cheese, while on the other, I have been eating much less meat, largely because - used to cooking for two people - what I would cook would far too often go bad in the fridge.
I have by no means become a vegetarian (let alone a vegan), but having now often gone days in a row without the flesh of an animal passing through my gullet, I have come to the gut-level realization that vegetarianism is not an impossibility for me.
A couple of weeks ago, fadefromnothing posted an impassioned rant about the evils of carnivorism. From a strictly pragmatic point-of-view, I thought her piece was poor propaganda - too easy to dismiss it as "emotional" (that the argument, that basing a belief on one's feelings is "irrational" is bogus is an argument for another time) - but I had a hard time rebutting the rational arguments that underlay her feelings. In fact, I found it impossible to do so.
I don't care how good murder tastes. It is archaic, brutal, unecessary, and unethical. By supporting the industry, you are supporting the unecessary torture and death of innocent beings...STOP LYING TO YOURSELF. STOP KILLING PEOPLE AND ANIMALS. (fadefromnothing)
Getting away from the anger underlying that post, I find three basic points to Sidra's argument:
- (Other) animals are thinking and feeling beings;
- We in the rich world have no necessity to consume animal protein; and so,
- It is morally wrong to butcher (other) animals, whether for food, clothing or (presumably especially) for sport.
(Sidra further compared our modern willingness to torture and slaughter our fellow (thinking and feeling) animals to women's rights, slavery and concentration camps. And, though the comparisons may seem over-the-top to you, when you think about it, the idea is hard (impossible?) to rebut.)
Last Saturday, after my friend Vernski and I had talked ourselves out about Borat, I paraphrased Sidra's post, and described my discomfort in the fact I had been unable to argue against it.
Now Vernski, despite his long-term co-habitation with a vegetarian, is to my mind notoriously carnivorous. Where I make stir-fries, he broils thick, bloody steaks.
And so I was more than a little surprised when he agreed with me (and with Sidra).
Yes, he said, there is no justification for eating meat, no more than there was for the slave trade in the 18th century, or than there is now for sex tours of daycare centres in Thailand.
And yet, we both acknowledged, that this intellectual understanding of a moral fact was not going to stop either of us from frying up some bacon in the morning.
I like to think that I am a pretty good human being. I try not to lie, I make a point of not taking advantage of the weak or vulnerable and on at least a couple of occasions I have fought down fear and put my face on the line to protect a stranger from possible violence by people who could most likely have easily broken my body the way a child smashes her grand-mother's antique china tea-cup.
Long story short, Vernski and I agreed that eating meat is wrong. And yet we also agreed we will both continue to consume the flesh of what were once living, thinking and feeling creatures, into the foreseable future.
If you grant (as I do) that he and I are at the very least reasonably good people, how do you explain our willingness to engage in a practice we both agree is - in a word - evil? How is it that I am not emotionally tortured by the dichotomy between what I think and what I feel?
[Edit: According to this month's Harper's, "The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization warned that livestock such as cows, pigs, sheep and chickens are among the world's top three environmental threats:the agency said that livestock production, largely driven by the demand for meat, pollutes water, destroys biodiversity, and, when the entire production cycle is taken into account, produces more greenhouse gases than the transportation sector."]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 02:24 am (UTC)Presumably because of the level of intelligence - killing mosquitos and viruses probably doesn't bother you that much.
There's also the distance - you're not hacking apart the cow yourself so it's not immediate enough to be emotional.
And it's awfully convenient to eat meat - vegetarians have a lot of hassles from finding the right restaurants to politely saying no when a guest.
And the "moral" argument is not really relevant - presuming a lack of belief in absolute morality, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing something, especially something that only exists because we engineered its existence so that it could be killed. The very fact that your writer is allowed to have such "morality" is due to her rich and cushioned lifestyle in the first world which makes it a tad artificial (I presume "human need" must outweigh the moral rights of other animals? Or should starving humans die instead of eating flesh?)
That being said, I'm stuck in the same quandary - in theory I know I should eat vegetables as it's better for the planet and better for me and I'm uncomfortable with the living conditions of the animals and the knowledge that I couldn't hack them apart myself. I find it to be a flaw in myself that I can't be bothered to go to the effort of restricting my meat intake when I'm already eating so many other healthy foods that I wish were chocolate. I share your dilemma. Let me know if you find and easy and tasty way out of it!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 02:48 am (UTC)Totally agreed.
That being said, I'm a strict vegan. Residual habit, I guess, from being a super emotional and self-righteous sixteen year old. It's surprisingly easy, though, once you get into the habit.
Absolute Morality If Necessary, But Not Necessarily Absolute Morality
Date: 2007-01-19 04:07 am (UTC)An argument Sidra didn't address, in fact, is "relative cruelty". Can I justify eating meat if I make a point of eating only animals whose lives are spent in grazing in fields instead of in a "scientific" pen too small to allow the animal to turn around?
Re: Absolute Morality If Necessary, But Not Necessarily Absolute Morality
Date: 2007-01-24 02:04 am (UTC)That is an interesting argument. Based on the growing popularity of "organic"-type food, I suspect many subscribe to that theory, though I'm not sure if they could properly justify it. Does being nice to something before you hack it apart for your own selfish appetite make it better?
I'm not convinced that we're not "taught" that wanton cruelty is wrong. Especially since the definition of cruelty changes over the years - bound feet and corsets used to be quite fashionable!
As a subscriber to the "golden rule", I abhor wanton cruelty as not only unnecessary, but something that I would never want done to myself, thus I avoid it whenever possible.
Yet I still eat the damn cows from pens. Grr...
Re: Absolute Morality If Necessary, But Not Necessarily Absolute Morality
Date: 2007-01-27 01:00 am (UTC)I'd have to say "yes" - but reserve judgement as to whether "better" is enough to justify the slaughter itself. (And I also have to admit, my concern for an animal's suffering depends in part on what animal's we're talking about. In other words, rightly or wrongly, I care more about swine, for instance, than I do about cattle, simply because swine are more intelligent.)
I'm not convinced that we're not "taught" that wanton cruelty is wrong.
I think we *do* have to learn to empathize, at least to some extent. Certainly over the past few hundred years there has been a significant expansion in the range of beings that many of us consider to be "one of us". It wasn't all that long ago, in historical terms, that most of us lived in small tribal groups that figured the folks in the next valley were - at best - barely human.
A prediction: Presuming we survive the next century, Sidra's position will be a lot more mainstream than it is today.
Not Good Enough
Date: 2007-01-19 04:01 am (UTC)That's not a good answer. If the "level of intelligence" is all that stops me from eating the next moron I run into, I'll be one fat motherfucker and there's be one hell of a lot fewer cabbies cruising Queen Street six months from now.
And it's awfully convenient to eat meat - vegetarians have a lot of hassles from finding the right restaurants to politely saying no when a guest.
Sure, and 120 years ago, abolitionists would have had a hard time finding non-slave cotton. This doesn't address the moral question.
And the "moral" argument is not really relevant - presuming a lack of belief in absolute morality, there is nothing inherently wrong with killing something, especially something that only exists because we engineered its existence so that it could be killed.
Thank you. A point, finally. We have engineered chicken and cattle (and possibly some of the other domesticated animals) to the point where they would not survive if we didn't raise them and take care of them. For the sake of argument, would it be more moral to let them die off, or to continue raising creatures that can suffer, in order to slaughter and eat them?
By the way, I both do and don't believe in absolute morality.
As an atheist, I can't believe that there is one morality that applies both to the shark and to the fern. But as a (somewhat) empathetic human being, I *do* believe that - once one recognizes another being's capacity to feel pain - one has a moral obligation to do what one can to (at least) not add to the suffering.
In other words, there is a great deal wrong with wanton killing and torture.
he very fact that your writer is allowed to have such "morality" is due to her rich and cushioned lifestyle in the first world which makes it a tad artificial (I presume "human need" must outweigh the moral rights of other animals? Or should starving humans die instead of eating flesh?)
Read her post. She explicitly said (and I thought I made it clear) that she was referring to those of us rich enough to make a choice. I (and I think she) agree that "human need" does, in fact, modify morality. If there is actually any such thing as an absolute morality, it is to preserve the species (ie, one's offspring and relatives). Again, Sidra explicitly acknowledged that.
...in theory I know I should eat vegetables as it's better for the planet...
That's something she didn't address (and should have). It's really hard to argue in favour of steak when you know you're getting at least as much protein and fat from a handful of cashews.
Let me know if you find and easy and tasty way out of it!
You can start by doing what I'm doing - eating less meat, in favour of (for example) yogurt and granola and a handful of nuts sprinkled with fruit for breakfast.
But I'll keep you updated.
Re: Not Good Enough
Date: 2007-01-24 02:28 am (UTC)Rhetoric! Very amusing, but rhetorical. Perhaps "intelligent enough to speak" is the defining point, below which the lack of ability to plead for one's rights makes it a lot easier to eat them without emotional distress. Though that does intuit an uncertain future for tasty newborns - I like mine with teriyaki sauce.
Sure, and 120 years ago, abolitionists would have had a hard time finding non-slave cotton. This doesn't address the moral question.
Luckily, I don't need to address the moral question - you only asked why you kept eating bacon despite immorality. If the majority of options at every restaurant were tasty-looking vegetarian options and all your friends only served vegetarian dishes, I suspect bacon and the like may not be consumed as frequently.
Read her post. She explicitly said (and I thought I made it clear) that she was referring to those of us rich enough to make a choice. I (and I think she) agree that "human need" does, in fact, modify morality. If there is actually any such thing as an absolute morality, it is to preserve the species (ie, one's offspring and relatives). Again, Sidra explicitly acknowledged that.
I confess that I committed a sin of Internet dicussion in not reading the original material. I assumed from the tone that I knew all I needed to know, and it wouldn't be too helpful to my understanding of the world.
It's interesting that "wealth" determines whether something is wrong or right. I guess it's similar to "it's okay to steal food to live if you really have no other options". I'm not of a firm opinion here, but from re-reading what you're saying, I think I can agree that "self-perpetuation" has an "absolute" level of important, at which point the rest of it is just choices that I have trouble defending with moral justification (ah well, I guess babies are off the menu). If a knife was at my throat and I had to say for certain, then eating other creatures isn't morally wrong. I don't think having alternatives alters this.
Re: Not Good Enough
Date: 2007-01-27 01:17 am (UTC)The latter part of your sentence is certainly emotionally true (though even that is far from always the case; we seem to very easily define as "other" - and therefore, as fair game - just about anyone outside our extended families), but far from the only factor in determining how we go about defining who (or what) is in a group with "rights" and who (or what) is not.
Though that does intuit an uncertain future for tasty newborns - I like mine with teriyaki sauce.
And I prefer mine falling sweetly asleep on my chest - but to each their own.
It's interesting that "wealth" determines whether something is wrong or right.
As an atheist, I suppose in a technical sense I don't "believe" in an absolute morality at all. Morality is a human construct, based in large part on darwinian evolution - what's "good" is what leads to the perpetuation of the species (or the gene) and what is "bad" is what doesn't.
Nevertheless, I am human and (or so I believe) self-aware, so I act (or try to act) as if I believe in absolute morality. And from the perspective of my own morality, I think Sidra quite rightly placed the "right" of human survival above the "right" of animals not to be eaten.
I guess it's similar to "it's okay to steal food to live if you really have no other options".
I think so. And I agree with that position. Essentially, we're discussing a "hierarchy of values", though not all of them are obvious.
Freedom is hard sometimes, isn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 06:35 am (UTC)Being vegan, for me, is about making the best possible choice that I can. Following a number of buddhist ideologies, I do not consider it necessary to take the life of a creature when it is not necessary for my survival in any way.
My argument was emotional because it was in a specific context, not meant to be an intelligible or academic argument by any means. That will follow when I have some time to myself.
It's awfully simple to be a vegetarian, and even simpler to be vegan. I eat as much food as I want, and my diet is high in fibre, protein, iron, and it comes in many delicious forms. We need to rethink the way we see food that is not processed, it is about time.
My rich and cushioned lifestyle? I'd appreciate it if people didn't make judgements about my lifestyle, because I grew up in quite povery-stricken conditions in Columbia, Argentina and Pakistan, and it is because I was provided with the resources to live in a developed nation, that I began to appreciate life. We depended on animals for far more purposes than food in Pakistan ( I lived on a goat farm for most of the summer) and I have brought back my appreciation for animals from them.
And no, 'starving humans' shouldn't die, because if you've read my post (and I apologize, it is difficult to make through the melodrama), I only advoate a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle for those whom it is possible for.
Eating an apple and some soymilk for breakfast is easy for me. Having a vegetable stirfry is even easier. See what I mean? It's definitely not difficult. If I go to a restaurant, I order the vegetable option, ask them to leave the dairy/eggs out of it as I am severely allergic, and then I generally get a decent option.
I am vegan for the health benefit as well, which are easy to look up. Nutrition is one thing - you can get all the nutrition you need from a strictly vegan diet, but you have to dramatically alter your lifestyle, something that I was willing to do and am seeing positive results from.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-24 02:45 am (UTC)From what I've seen written by vegans and vegetarians, it's not simple at all. If you're happy with, and have the time to, frequently prepare your own food and limiting yourself to certain restaurants, it's probably not an issue, but I don't find those restraints convenient at all. Learning to cook and being prepared to turn down snacks and food at parties and events isn't something I relish in the slightest. You even state later that to be strictly vegan you need to dramatically alter your lifestyle. If you truly believe, how can you not be strict? That's like being a staunch Catholic "most of the time".
I also think I look cool in leather ;-) (this was an issue when I dated a vegan - I knew I had to figure out where things were going before winter came and she saw what was in my closet)
I am presuming your current lifestyle allows you to have a blog and to have the time and the connectivity to post to it. Purely by being a vegan/vegetarian, the odds strongly favour wealth greater than most of the world. If you are hand-pumping your $100 laptop in the middle of Ghanain drought to produce your post, then my apologies :-)
I understand your plea, and if it is truly aimed at just the wealthy with an understanding of the wobbly nature of the morality/ethicality you argue on, then I understimated the arguer and offer my apologies again!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 01:33 pm (UTC)There is a line of moral thinking which states that agriculture is actually LESS moral than eating meat because of the number of small mammals that get killed by the machines - mice and rabbits and groundhogs and whatnot. Something like 100 per square kilometer of land worked. See: Mrs. Brisby and the Rats of NIMH.
I read an article once that suggested that the MOST moral thing to do would be to eat the biggest creature possible - say, blue whales - to feed the most for the longest with the most minimal loss of life.
Meat Production *Is* Agriculture
Date: 2007-01-20 12:24 am (UTC)This might be true if we were still hunters and gatherers, but industrial cattle eat industrial corn, so that line of thinking doesn't stand up. A lot more people could be fed with the multiple pounds of corn (not to mention water) it takes to raise one pound of beef.
Re: Meat Production *Is* Agriculture
Date: 2007-01-20 12:44 am (UTC)Re: Meat Production *Is* Agriculture
Date: 2007-01-20 12:52 am (UTC)Whether or not I end up becoming some kind of vegetarian, moving to organic meat is something I am financially capable of doing without significant sacrifice - and in fact, something I have started to do.