I am not a vegetarian,
although in recent years I have been leaning increasingly in that
direction. I generally find the basic
argument (as offered by James Rachels, for example) pretty convincing. If we do not need to kill animals for food,
and can live perfectly healthy lives without doing so, then we should not be
killing animals for food. In the face of
arguments such as this, I concede that my not being a vegetarian can only be
explained by my own weakness and lack of will power.
However, arguments such as Kathryn Paxton George’s also
give me some pause. She points out that
the nutritional needs of women, children, the elderly, and people in
“developing societies” are not so easily reconciled with the “basic
argument.” An unequal burden is placed
on different people for seemingly arbitrary reasons.
Admittedly this says next to nothing about my own diet
(seeing as I am an adult male living in a wealthy society). Yet she does seem to bring into question the
idea that strict vegetarianism is a universal moral imperative. Should it be seen in more relative terms,
depending on an individual’s particular situation? Without question, there is no justification
for factory farming and the cruelty discussed in Part Four of the text. Boycotting these industries is absolutely a
moral necessity, and no doubt meat consumption would be greatly reduced as a
result. But I often wonder if
eliminating meat-eating altogether is reasonable, or necessary. While I linger
on the fence, I do agree with Rollin’s conclusion: “if we are to use animals for our benefit, it
is morally incumbent upon us to make sure that they benefit as well, by at
least living decent lives, not lives of misery, fear, and pain.”
Personally, I think that vegetarianism isn't imperative for everybody; I think the need for vegetarianism should be tailored to each individual person.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, humans are generally omnivores (somewhat lousy ones, but that is nearly besides the point), and as such they are able to choose between animal and vegetation sustenance; omnivorism is a matter of choice and opportunity rather than necessity. So, the majority of humans could likely maintain a vegetarian diet with few (if any) problems. However, there are certainly some individuals who, for a variety of reasons, cannot get all the nutrients they need from plant-based sources alone. As such, they are well within their rights to continue eating animal meat.
To go along with this, I would also add that ethics about a sliding scale in many ways. Veganism, for instance, is perhaps more ethically ideal than vegetarianism, but some people lack the resources and have allergies, which prevents them from being full time vegans; still, they should opt to be as ethical as they can be. So, in the case of a person who can't be a vegetarian due to being unable to get all the nutrients they need from plant-based foods, that individual should try only to eat the animal(s) with lowest value and only do so around as often as they need to in order to get the proper nutrients.
I suppose, also, that I would slightly alter Rollin's conclusion before I agree to it. I would say that if we are to use animals out of necessity, it is morally incumbent upon us to make that they benefit as well, by at least living decent lives, not lives of misery, fear, and pain.
Hi. I responded to Brandon's response to you here:
ReplyDeletehttp://asfeaa2013s.blogspot.com/2013/02/facts-and-fictions.html