I have been trying to prove that none of us has a logically rigorous reason for consuming what we consume. The only exception is the cannibal, who has decided to eat any living thing he chooses. But for those of us who find cannibalism immoral (that would be me and everyone I have ever met) draw a line in the sand: “I am comfortable eating X, but I am not comfortable eating Y.” And I have tried to show in the last blog that there is no logically rigorous way to discriminate between X and Y.
So let me end this blog series by stating my own conviction on the matter. I am a pescartarian (yes, that’s officially a word as of last year – apparently not yet in Microsoft Word, because my software underlines it!), which means that the only meat I eat is from fish. This suggests two questions: why I am uncomfortable eating mammals, and why am I comfortable eating seafood?
My reason for abstaining from mammals is straightforward: it seems to me as though cows, for instance, have at least one important in common with me. No, they don’t reason abstractly, but they can feel pain, and this is significant. I believe this because 1) they instinctively move away from the source of a pain, and 2) they make noises to show their dissatisfaction with the pain. So when I watch videos of a slaughter house, it is disturbing to see animals behave like I do in response to pain. That’s all there is to my reasoning there. Things are just the opposite in the case of fish and shrimp. I have seen shrimp and fish being caught and skinned, and they just don’t remind me of myself. Does this prove that ‘fish don’t have feelings?’ Of course not, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and that is where I have chosen. It doesn’t seem like fish feel pain, at least the way I do, but it does seem like cows feel pain exactly the way I do.
To the skeptic who believes that my reasoning here is absurd, let me say two things. First, I will remind you that your level of comfort (“I will eat X, but I will not eat Y”) is just as arbitrary as mine. The only exception is a cannibal – he has a logical consistent position: “I will eat anything that provides nourishment to me.” I will close with an analogy. Do you think that it is icky when two siblings get married? Yeah, me too. How about first cousins? Still pretty gross. Well, how about 16th cousins? That’s not so gross, is it? But where is the logical cut off point? Of course there isn’t one - we have to make one up. My personal statement is this: “I will eat fish, but I will not eat mammals.” My statement is not logically rigorous, but then again, neither is yours. The best we can do is to ask ourselves the tough questions, which is what I am trying to do.
Showing posts with label Vegetarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vegetarianism. Show all posts
1.18.2009
"Is It Wrong to Eat Meat?," Part IV: Drawing the Line
Which living things are we comfortable eating and which are we not? That’s the question that each human being must answer for herself. Carnivorous non-human animals never have the chance to ask themselves this question since they live and eat by instinct and necessity, and so we have no model to look to in the animal kingdom.
If human beings were forced to eat meat in order to survive, then there would be no moral question here. But in fact our species can survive and thrive by eating a variety of living things. We can consume and derive nourishment from living things as diverse as carrots, buffalo, wheat, chickens, or even other human beings. And since unlike other animals we are not forced by instinct or necessity to eat any of these particular things, we must choose what we feel comfortable putting into our body. Unless we are morally comfortable eating all living things, including other people (which some ancient societies were but no one that I know is), we must draw a line in the sand: “I will eat X, but I will not eat Y.” But where should we draw the line? And what will our criterion be?
The carnivore likes to accuse the vegetarian of a contradiction here: “You won’t eat chickens, but you will eat carrots. Aren’t carrots living too?” The major problem with the carnivore’s argument at this point is that he doesn’t realize that it is also directed back at himself. Yes, vegetarians have to ‘draw the line’ somewhere, and this is going to be fairly arbitrary. But the carnivore has the exact same duty to ‘draw the line!’ Most people in the West have no problem eating cows, but they refuse on moral grounds to eat dogs. They will eat pigs, but cats are strictly off limits. And of course it would be a grave injustice to eat another human being. But what do dogs, cats, and human beings have that cows, pigs, and chickens do not have?
Take for example a carnivore who draws the line this way: “I will eat any animal, but I will not eat other human beings.” OK, but why in the world did you draw the line right below humans? Because they are rational? Because they are self-conscious? Well, there are some monkeys that are more rational and self-conscious then some humans born with developmental disabilities or in a coma. Surely you don’t propose that it’s morally justifiable to eat someone just because their I.Q. is too low! Or perhaps you take a religious route and propose that humans are off-limits for food because humans, unlike other animals, were made in the image of God. OK, but is that the reason that you do not eat people – just because of that verse in Genesis? If you were not aware of that verse, you would happily slaughter and eat your neighbor? No, I think that there are some undiagnosed moral intuitions underneath the surface that the carnivore has not seriously addressed.
If human beings were forced to eat meat in order to survive, then there would be no moral question here. But in fact our species can survive and thrive by eating a variety of living things. We can consume and derive nourishment from living things as diverse as carrots, buffalo, wheat, chickens, or even other human beings. And since unlike other animals we are not forced by instinct or necessity to eat any of these particular things, we must choose what we feel comfortable putting into our body. Unless we are morally comfortable eating all living things, including other people (which some ancient societies were but no one that I know is), we must draw a line in the sand: “I will eat X, but I will not eat Y.” But where should we draw the line? And what will our criterion be?
The carnivore likes to accuse the vegetarian of a contradiction here: “You won’t eat chickens, but you will eat carrots. Aren’t carrots living too?” The major problem with the carnivore’s argument at this point is that he doesn’t realize that it is also directed back at himself. Yes, vegetarians have to ‘draw the line’ somewhere, and this is going to be fairly arbitrary. But the carnivore has the exact same duty to ‘draw the line!’ Most people in the West have no problem eating cows, but they refuse on moral grounds to eat dogs. They will eat pigs, but cats are strictly off limits. And of course it would be a grave injustice to eat another human being. But what do dogs, cats, and human beings have that cows, pigs, and chickens do not have?
Take for example a carnivore who draws the line this way: “I will eat any animal, but I will not eat other human beings.” OK, but why in the world did you draw the line right below humans? Because they are rational? Because they are self-conscious? Well, there are some monkeys that are more rational and self-conscious then some humans born with developmental disabilities or in a coma. Surely you don’t propose that it’s morally justifiable to eat someone just because their I.Q. is too low! Or perhaps you take a religious route and propose that humans are off-limits for food because humans, unlike other animals, were made in the image of God. OK, but is that the reason that you do not eat people – just because of that verse in Genesis? If you were not aware of that verse, you would happily slaughter and eat your neighbor? No, I think that there are some undiagnosed moral intuitions underneath the surface that the carnivore has not seriously addressed.
1.13.2009
"Is It Wrong to Eat Meat?" Part III: The Argument from Evolution
There are two basic arguments I hear for the carnivorous diet, the first of which is the mono-theistic one that I discussed last week. This is the basic line of thinking that God created animals for human consumption, which turns out to be false, according to the creation text for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Instead, God actually gave humans a vegetarian diet, and only later permitted us to eat meat.
The other argument does not rely on any kind of religious belief at all, but a scientific one. The best summary comes from a former doctor of mine: “Well, humans didn’t fight their way to the top of the food chain only to eat vegetables!” The idea, of course, is that humans are the (current) end of a long line of organisms which evolved and survived at least in part by eating the species below it. From this perspective, it seems bizarre to turn from our habitual meat-eating ways for moral reasons.
But to argue that something is morally justified because it is ground into us by evolution doesn’t have much weight behind it. It doesn’t take a genius to make a long list of things that are natural but that we consider immoral. Remember, one of Darwin’s basic ideas was that the strong exploit the weak in order to survive, whether we are talking about genes, monkeys, or people. So unless you are ready to argue that murder is morally justified because it is natural, you shouldn’t say the same about eating meat.
From my experience, it seems that these are really the only two arguments for the carnivorous diet. I don’t think that either of them are compelling arguments, and although that does not yet mean that we should be vegetarians, I hope that this will make the future discussion more interesting.
The other argument does not rely on any kind of religious belief at all, but a scientific one. The best summary comes from a former doctor of mine: “Well, humans didn’t fight their way to the top of the food chain only to eat vegetables!” The idea, of course, is that humans are the (current) end of a long line of organisms which evolved and survived at least in part by eating the species below it. From this perspective, it seems bizarre to turn from our habitual meat-eating ways for moral reasons.
But to argue that something is morally justified because it is ground into us by evolution doesn’t have much weight behind it. It doesn’t take a genius to make a long list of things that are natural but that we consider immoral. Remember, one of Darwin’s basic ideas was that the strong exploit the weak in order to survive, whether we are talking about genes, monkeys, or people. So unless you are ready to argue that murder is morally justified because it is natural, you shouldn’t say the same about eating meat.
From my experience, it seems that these are really the only two arguments for the carnivorous diet. I don’t think that either of them are compelling arguments, and although that does not yet mean that we should be vegetarians, I hope that this will make the future discussion more interesting.
1.04.2009
"Is It Wrong to Eat Meat?," Part II
Christians, Jews, and even Muslims in a limited way all accept the truth (whether literal or metaphorical) of Genesis, and therefore they are particularly scandalized by Christians like me who question meat-eating on moral grounds. “After all,” they say, “Genesis tells us that God created animals for food.” Well, that turns out to be false. God first created plants, then animals, and then people (at least in the Genesis 1 version). God then told Adam and Eve about the relationship of those three segments of the created order: “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of the earth…You shall have them for food” (v. 29). Notice that at this point humans were not permitted to eat animals – only plants. Surprisingly, God gave the same diet to land and air animals: “And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens…I have given every green plant for food” (v. 30).
So plants were to be eaten by humans and animals, and humans and animals were not supposed to eat each other. This means that the ideal Judeo-Islamic-Christian diet is vegetarian, since Genesis is thought to describe an ideal set of living conditions and God issued a strict vegetarian diet in the Garden. So it seems false that God’s original intention for animals was as sustenance for people. God seemed to think that people would do best by just sticking to plants.
Now, in Genesis 9:2-3, God finally permitted Noah and his family to eat animals. So it’s clear that killing animals is not wrong, at least not in the same way that killing people is wrong. But that does not imply that there are no moral considerations to make when considering diet. Remember, this change happened after the Fall – that is, after things got messed up. So it is clear to me that the carnivorous diet is still not the ideal; the ideal diet is given in the Garden. And of course, being permitted to do something is not the same as it being ideal, as Paul points out. Just because something is permitted does not mean that it is beneficial. There are plenty of good reasons for a Christian to make a moral decision about an issue that is permissible, but not ideal. This is called conviction.
So plants were to be eaten by humans and animals, and humans and animals were not supposed to eat each other. This means that the ideal Judeo-Islamic-Christian diet is vegetarian, since Genesis is thought to describe an ideal set of living conditions and God issued a strict vegetarian diet in the Garden. So it seems false that God’s original intention for animals was as sustenance for people. God seemed to think that people would do best by just sticking to plants.
Now, in Genesis 9:2-3, God finally permitted Noah and his family to eat animals. So it’s clear that killing animals is not wrong, at least not in the same way that killing people is wrong. But that does not imply that there are no moral considerations to make when considering diet. Remember, this change happened after the Fall – that is, after things got messed up. So it is clear to me that the carnivorous diet is still not the ideal; the ideal diet is given in the Garden. And of course, being permitted to do something is not the same as it being ideal, as Paul points out. Just because something is permitted does not mean that it is beneficial. There are plenty of good reasons for a Christian to make a moral decision about an issue that is permissible, but not ideal. This is called conviction.
12.30.2008
Is It Wrong to Eat Meat?, Part I
Blogger's Note: The Orthodox Heretic is going anonymous for a while as I begin the job-hunting process. As a result, I have removed my pic and profile info.
I blogged last year about how vegetarianism sustained the environment that we humans depend on for life, and is therefore the best diet. I still consider this a sufficient reason to be a vegetarian, but I also want to evaluate this issue from a moral perspective. It will take me several weeks to fully articulate my own position, but the short answer is that no, I do not think that killing an animal is wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong, yet I also not think that animal consumption is free from ethical concerns.
I am apparently by myself on this one, as I have only ever met one other Christian who shared my belief that eating animals is morally problematic. I think that the best way to start arguing for my position is to turn the tables around and instead ask, what are the arguments for eating animals? There are two I hear more than any others, namely the mono-theistic argument (animals are God’s provision for human consumption) and the evolutionary argument (eating meat is ground into our nature). I think that both of these arguments fail in important ways, which will perhaps give my readers a reason to allow me to articulate my beliefs.
In my experience, that is the most difficult part of beginning this dialogue. People don’t want to engage me on this issue because they are sure that it will not be an interesting conversation and probably a little embarrassing for me. But perhaps if I am able to destabilize the two most common rationales for a carnivorous diet, I will gain a more sympathetic audience.
I blogged last year about how vegetarianism sustained the environment that we humans depend on for life, and is therefore the best diet. I still consider this a sufficient reason to be a vegetarian, but I also want to evaluate this issue from a moral perspective. It will take me several weeks to fully articulate my own position, but the short answer is that no, I do not think that killing an animal is wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong, yet I also not think that animal consumption is free from ethical concerns.
I am apparently by myself on this one, as I have only ever met one other Christian who shared my belief that eating animals is morally problematic. I think that the best way to start arguing for my position is to turn the tables around and instead ask, what are the arguments for eating animals? There are two I hear more than any others, namely the mono-theistic argument (animals are God’s provision for human consumption) and the evolutionary argument (eating meat is ground into our nature). I think that both of these arguments fail in important ways, which will perhaps give my readers a reason to allow me to articulate my beliefs.
In my experience, that is the most difficult part of beginning this dialogue. People don’t want to engage me on this issue because they are sure that it will not be an interesting conversation and probably a little embarrassing for me. But perhaps if I am able to destabilize the two most common rationales for a carnivorous diet, I will gain a more sympathetic audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)