Why is taste a legitimate defense for eating meat (and dairy and eggs)? Almost every conversation I have with people about veganism ends with a smile and “it just tastes so good!” Being friendly, I remain casual and let the subject drop — but inside, my mind’s eye is twitching because I find this ‘argument’ so maddening. Yes, bacon has a unique flavor and there is no replacement for cheese, but if these products were made through human death and exploitation would we also find our taste buds overpowering our sense of morality? Are rights inversely related to deliciousness — so that humans and rocks have the most, while mangos and pigs have the least?
It seems to me that “I know it when I see it” moral principles rely too much on arbitrary cultural conventions, like our propensity to keep dogs as pets rather than chattel. If we see some rights as being inalienable, what is it in people that we see as benefiting from these rights, or needing protection under these rights? Is it our intelligence that qualifies us? If so, do more intelligent people deserve more rights, or is there a minimum threshold? Even assuming that we can measure intelligence in a satisfactory way, many animals qualify at least at the level of children. And no one is saying we should factory-farm children, or run grotesque experiments on children. Our repugnance of this idea stems from our ability to empathize with children, even physically and mentally handicapped ones. But lest we think this is because of their humanity, think about your reaction to the torture of pets. Or remember that throughout history, certain human groups have been considered to be essentially nonhuman, and were treated as we treat actual nonhumans today.
Appealing to taste, over all other considerations — practicality, health, and morality — indicates to me that the person I am talking to knows that ultimately, there is no substantive defense for eating meat. Today I met someone who said that pigs were good for eating, and also for playing with — he pointed out that pigs were incredibly smart. But he equated their entire worth as sentient beings with the taste of their flesh — I guess bacon tastes pretty good if it’s worth killing for. Another person I’ve confronted has even suggested, though in jest, that if a friend’s flesh was promised to be the most exquisite culinary experience in the world, they would eat them right up. I find this tendency of thought disturbing, and I hope you do too. If someone is willing to bend their morality over backwards to defend meat-eating, I would be tempted to throw up my hands and walk away.
But that seems to require walking away from everyone I know, everyone I care about, everyone I love. Veganism is not about isolation, it’s about compassion and ethics. It’s not about being rude, it’s about speaking my truth. Sometimes I just wish people could taste what’s really in the meat.
{ 8 } Comments
Wow. Food for thought.
As for the entry: I do not believe a lack of compassion is the issue.
As for the subject (and the reason I am commenting): Found this today and I liked enough of the entries that I thought I would share it with you: http://www.honestmeat.com/
I realize that meat-eaters do not lack compassion for people. I am very curious about conscious carnivores, though, and have been asking my friends and classmates to the question, “Why do you eat meat? Why do you think animals should be raised and killed for food?” Some refuse to answer, saying that there is no reason to defend this practice, but others have been giving very thoughtful responses. (Please feel free to answer this yourself!)
I find it especially difficult to understand farmers who care for animals, sometimes as companions or family members, and are still able to slaughter and eat them. Consider Wheezy from the blog you pointed me to, or these women who literally love their lambs to death.
From my point of view, (most) animals are sentient and experience life with a subjectivity similar to myself or any human. They have a real interest in continuing to live and thrive. If were in their shoes/hooves/fins I would not want to be killed — not without a darned good reason, anyway. My overextended empathy means I can no longer see situations in a completely anthropocentric way. If it’s me or the cow, I’d probably think differently, but thankfully that’s not the case for me or for most other people on the planet.
Considering I don’t eat meat and only occasionally sacrifice poor little fishes for sushi, I think my answer might be a bit less interesting than those that are not pescatarian . Though…my reasons are different from yours, as my morality should never be mistaken for ‘nice’.
Anyhow, my “issue” comment about your entry was not directed at meat-eaters but squarely at you.
(p.s. No email notifications for replies, quite a bother to keep track.)
In that case I’m kind of confused. Is ethical veganism not about extending compassion towards non-human animals? Or is there some other issue you’re directing at me?
No, your issue with them is really an issue with yourself in how you react to their actions or inactions.
You think you are right. Further, you seem to think that your thinking is right for everyone. Further, if they cannot see that, then you are “tempted to throw up my hands and walk away”.
Even when you are trying not to be completely anthropocentric in your morality your anthropocentricism is evident. You describe it as “my truth” and yet “ethics” is meant to ascribe morality in a group or culture. Can you see everything and everyone through eyes that are unbiased enough to judge them? Also, is your own morality beyond reproach? Are you willing to be similarly judged on it?
This is my own sentimentality leaking through. Brilliant people should not give up on the world, especially their friends.
Yes, you’re right. I’ve been struggling with this a lot, obviously, but I think I’ve finally realized that I’m in a sort of bind. Other people don’t empathize with animals, or have different criteria for ethics and morality. There’s nothing especially “right” about the way I feel, except that I think I can step into an animal’s shoes to the extent that I would not want to be treated as property or as product. And because I feel this way, I can’t fully accept the relativity of my position — how other people conceive of nonhuman animals affects other animals, and not just me.
On the other hand, it is a comfort to know that human omnivores aren’t dysfunctional as human beings, and that they may very well be fully ethical and moral beings to the extent of their empathy and ability. And I certainly don’t want to think I’m superior or “beyond reproach,” and the difficulties surrounding ethics/morality in general and human-animal relations in particular are becoming increasingly clear as I think, discuss, and read about these subjects. Yet I still can’t help but feel that there’s an “I” in most animal minds which is worth our consideration.
No matter how the world perpetuates inequalities and injustices, whatever those might mean and whatever value they might have in a vacuum, I keep dreaming of utopias in which everything thrives — culture without taboo, diversity without hatred, spirituality without religion, and elegance without seriousness. The practical impossibilities of these dreams (which people love to bring up) are annoying, but their definitional incoherence throws me into a tail spin. How do I keep from getting lost in relativism and postmodernism without being stubborn and judgmental?
There is nothing wrong with being self-involved, not a bit. How else are you to find who you want to be as a person and how you want to respond to other people. You have a conscious choice for both. Being self-righteous though, that’s just rude.
All human beings are dysfunctional. They’re contradictory. They’re obtuse. Pull out a thesaurus, find a word, they’re likely that too. If we want to use big names and words (and what Reedie doesn’t from time to time), even Kant with his ontological ethics undoubtedly broke his own categorical imperatives. (He did argue against animal cruelty and for human compassion though. If you get a chance, read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.) My point is, we are messy and irrational, even the best of us. And, not a single one of us is perfect.
As for utopias. Oh, they’re not impossible. Not even unlikely. Instead, no single one is the same for all of us. Yours is not mine. Mine is not yours. That’s not incoherent, that’s reality. What you say does not sound like a utopia though, it sounds like a better world. Nothing wrong with dreaming about that, nor working towards making it happen.
…..
“How do I keep from getting lost in relativism and postmodernism without being stubborn and judgmental?”
By finding a reason not to be.
Post a Comment