A great friend of mine has decided to "experiment" with being vegetarian for a month to see if he'll experience any health benefits. While this was not my primary reason for a vegan diet, it is surely a reason for many. There a bountiful health benefits inclusing drasitc reduction in cancer and heart disease. I wanted to post a link to a great article written by David Yount, entitled
Eight Arguments in Favor of Eating Meat and Objections Thereto -- Before you read it, think up YOUR best rationale for eating meat (if you still do that is), and then have at it. Here is what he covers, see if your argument doesn't fall into one of these categories:
1. The Bible Argument:
“The Bible says we shall have dominion over the animals and I take that to mean that we can eat meat and use animals however we want.
Therefore, we can eat meat.”
2. The Tradition Argument:“I’ve been brought up eating meat and never questioned it.
Our culture accepts eating meat as well.
Therefore, I should be able to eat meat.”
3. The Taste Argument:
“I love the way meat tastes.
I won’t deprive myself of this.
Therefore, I should be able to eat meat.”
4. The Teeth Argument: “Our teeth are made for eating meat. All animals that have teeth like ours eat meat. So we should be able to eat meat.”
5. The Nutrition Argument:“We need the protein that is provided in meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”
6. The Darwinian/Machiavellian Argument: “The process of evolution has placed humans, the stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker (non-human animals) for our eating and other pleasures. Other animals besides us eat meat (i.e., other animals) – are they immoral? E.g., if the lion eats the zebra, that isn’t morally wrong. So it’s a natural instinct we have to eat meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”
7. The A-moral Beings Argument: “Non-human animals are a-moral beings. Non-human animals cannot question their actions like humans can, and this is what makes humans special. If beings cannot question how they live, then they have no intrinsic worth or rights. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”
8. The Intelligence/Rationality Argument:“Humans are more intelligent and more rational than non-humans. These characteristics give us the right or opportunity to be able to use non-humans for food. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”
Of course, he brilliantly and simply refutes every single one of the above. The result, for the average meat eater -- is that they end up agreeing "technically" or "philosophically" they shouldn't eat meat, but then continue to do so because the addiction is too strong.
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/meatarg.htmlIt's important to point out that much of this holds true for the poultry and dairy industry as well, as animals are torture and killed in the production of milk and eggs.
2 comments:
I think your over complicating it.
The rational is that I have no more moral quandaries about killing either a human or an animal.
Humans are animals and I know that sounds harsh but it seems to be ok when it's government sanctioned but when I say it, it sounds like I'm a psychopath.
Perhaps the real answer is both my government and I are Psychopathic but I see no rational for this war and can see some in eating.
Though at times there are probably more rational arguments for executing certain people then there are for animals.
I eat very little meat,my consumption is mostly through Dairy and fish. I eat meat the way other people eat sushi ..in small portions. But I also have an altered anatomy and have lost about 95 % of my stomach, sometimes eating meat is an efficient way of getting the proteins that I need.
Though as a vegan you would probably suggest other proteins and though I take the majority of my protein through isolated whey drinks , under the vegan guidelines I'm just as sinful as any other meat eater. Whey comes from Dairy and is an easily digestible form of proteins.
I think that there should be two qualifiers for people who are going to eat massed produced meat
1- After being taugh the humain and proper way ,you must kill and butcher an animal. Not a fish, a deer, pig or cow. Alone, you and the animal.
If you cannot stomach the act of killing and butchering then you probably should consider if you should be supporting that industry or not.
2- You should go and see a live industrial farm and slaughterhouse and watch every step of how massed produced farm animals live. Pigs that don't get to stand up so their held in the nursing position and up through the harvesting of animals.
Again if you can't tolerate, and you can't participate in that, perhaps you should consider supporting that industry.
Along with the fact that we could feed many more hungry people with the space thats used and the grain thats used to raise cows and such.
I find that there is a better middle ground in my world and that is both what I said above and that what we really need is to find a more humain way of killing the meat we are going to harvest. Because your just not going to stop, barring any environmental disaster ( which I'm not ruling out ) the world from eating meat.
So why not make the goal - since the reality is that you cannot prevent the world from harvesting animals for food. That we should have a heightened awareness of what goes into that and look to make that practice as humian as it can be.
As to my suggestions above about killing and seeing a slaughterhouse. I think the age of 13 is proper for that. Boys and girls alike ..If we can dedicate X number of weeks to sex education we can dedicate X number of weeks to how your food gets onto those styrofoam holders on the meat shelf in your grocery store and take kids of a certain age to kill their animal , alone , in private, without peer pressure or help.
And then show them how those animals live and how they are massed harvested and then optimally have a national dialog about how we are going to raise animals and harvest them , even if it means spending more money. Becuase I think that while laudable. Trying to stop the world or even a country from eating meat is not going to be a realistic goal.
Good Luck.
^
^
^
U.S. slavery also used to be a normal part of society, and I'm sure many used your argument, that "compromises" should be made instead of the abolition of slavery, because they thought people wouldn't give up slavery. They were wrong. So why should animal rights activists compromise just because veganism is currently unpopular? Abolition is what got rid of U.S. slavery, and that is what it will take to get rid of nonhuman exploitation. Veganism strikes at the roots. Regulating nonhuman animal exploitation is not the way to go. Welfare reforms attempt to treat the symptoms inherent within the animal exploitation industries, but fail because nonhumans are viewed as property by law, to be used as means to human ends. They are not recognized as sentient beings with inherent value or interests to be considered, because their basic right not to be treated as a thing has already been violated by being classified as property. Read Gary L. Francione's books about this. He is a professor of animal rights law, and knows exactly how the law works in regards to nonhuman animals. People who take nonhuman animal interests seriously will go vegan. There is no such thing as compassionate harm.
Post a Comment