I like to eat animals, I really like to eat animals, but I can't form a decent argument for not being a vegetarian. It really just comes down to me not being completely in control of my diet. I can see myself cutting out all animal intact once I move out. What are you opinions? TELL ME I MUST KNOW!
__________________
"Moris should be here soon to rub it in my face..." -Pizza
My argument relies on a great deal of controversial metaphilosophical premises that I will only go into if pressed. However, here is what I believe:
Basically I think that my eating chicken is no more wrong than a cheetah eating gazelle. The human species have always subsisted on a mixed diet of plants and animals -- that versatility contributed to the fitness of our ancestors. The natural order of things is for human beings to be omnivorous.
But what about animal rights? I think animal rights are a misguided generalization of misguided conceptions of human rights. Whatever intrinsic value we place on human life and well-being, it does not and should not unquestionably translate into equivalent or comparable values on the life and welfare of other species. Human morality itself is an evolved capacity that no doubt offers us a pronounced survival/reproductive benefit. Since, therefore, all moral truths (a conception which itself is, I think, misunderstood) must relate to evolutionary fitness. It is difficult to understand how raising and eating chickens makes me or any other human being less evolutionarily fit.
But what about pet abuse? I think the abuse of companionate animals is blameworthy, but only because it is indicative of an unhealthy moral psyche and/or social maladjustment. Because of this, societies may justly punish those who would abuse or kill a companionate animal under his/her care. However, it should be noted that whichever animals qualify as companionate (or otherwise protected) animals are not a product of anything but arbitrary cultural values which have no rational basis. One society may protect cattle (as in India) and people may be punished for slaughtering cows. Another society may protect canines (as in many cultures) and people may be punished for slaughtering dogs. However, a society that slaughters dogs or cattle is no more or less just (necessarily) than these cultures which value those animals.
The sympathies we feel for animals are learned. Children raised on farms will pet their dogs just before killing their cattle. Animals cherished as pets in the United States, like the guinea pig, are kept and slaughtered as livestock in other countries, like the Andean nations. I believe people with strong moral emotions related to the slaughtering of animals for food are the victims of an overextension of the sympathies we have all learned to feel toward our companionate animals.
That said, there is nothing wrong with a vegetarian diet. It is a healthy diet that, with a little ingenuity, can provide all of the nutrients humans need to thrive. Vegetarians have much lower risks for many cancers, heart disease, and other common diseases. I have nothing against vegetarians, although I will counter any of their arguments that seek to convince me that a vegetarian diet is a morally superior choice. The only argument that holds any weight, in my opinion, is the environmental argument. The production of meat, as an industry, is a large polluter and a great contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the industry can make itself cleaner, and the extent to which this is achieved decreases the weight of the environmental argument for vegetarianism.
-- Edited by Jason on Sunday 12th of July 2009 09:51:13 PM
I've started using bacon grease as a cooking medium more often (it actually has less saturated fat than butter). It makes everything cooked in it delicious.
Jasno was tl;dr. I have no ethical objections to eating meat, and considering I'm not cutting out less essential things like sugar and junk food, I'm not cutting out something like meat even if it's unhealthy.
In short, I think there are no sound arguments that should convince humans to not eat meat, and humans eating meat is the default condition. Thus, all meat eating humans should continue to eat meat without feeling guilty about it.
Since apes are so genetically close to us, I understand it's actually easier for them to transmit diseases to us (I am no virologist, though). The last I checked, it was speculated that AIDS was transmitted by an ape that was eaten by some folks in Africa.
EDIT: This is probably obvious, but I say this only because that is the only reason I can think of not to eat apes. Most of the aversion of eating primates, I would speculate, comes from our aversion to cannibalism in response to their similarity (physically and behaviorally) to humans.
-- Edited by Jason on Tuesday 21st of July 2009 01:10:38 AM
