I recall wandering though another humdrum day, cruising a stretch of highway while listening to an album I had purchased because of the artist’s faint link to another artist whom I thought melded well the dusty with digital (a story for another, likely humdrum day). I was quite relaxed in this tedium, perhaps hypnotized by the compounding influences of boom bap and life’s futility, but I was just conscious enough not to acquaint myself with the ass-end of the presumed whip ahead. When I came within discriminating distance, I noticed that a) this was, indeed, a whip and b) there was a salient obtrusion on the otherwise pristine tail of this vehicle: a sticker with an illegible message and charismatic cartoon pig. Now, I’m not usually the type to pull ever closer to another car’s rear bumper so that I might savor the philosophical gem packaged and presented so economically, but, perhaps driven by intuitive reason, I took the first break in cruising to grasp the insight offered within said package. I inched forward, pinched my eyes, and took a gander. The message read:

“If animals could talk, we’d all be vegetarians.”

Peering through squinted lenses, I was hardly staring askance at this claim, but rather bewildered. And, my reaction surprised me.

Once more I read the sticker. I let it soak in for a time, and then repeated the sentiment (this time aloud),

“If animals could talk, we all would be vegetarians.”

Inasmuch as I think the claim is painfully straightforward (the underlying assumptions, too, are no mystery), I am not going to interpret the statement here. I will only say that it is quite alarming when one attains something like Zen enlightenment, and on this matter I was aghast. The entire course of my empty, miserable life had been an exhibition of reckless displays of egoism. I was Nietzsche’s partner in ruthlessness; an asshole, one might say. I was, thus, a coward, and there is no virtue in cowardice. So, I embarked on my current journey toward all but fully abandoning the self, beginning by eschewing eating meats.

It was, in fact, quite easy for me to “adjust” my diet. I suppose this contributed to the gap between reading the bumper sticker and grasping its implications, as it was a full year later when I first attempted to understand my position. Developing an understanding of the demand for a vegetarian diet, I constructed a dialectic schematic that I employed whenever someone solicited a defense of my position. And, for the last two years, I've attempted to reconcile this vegetarian ethic with eating animal byproducts. As a practical matter, this (maintaining a non-vegan diet that satisfies the demands of the aforementioned ethic) is impossible for most American citizens. It is quite difficult to locate milks, cheeses, and the like that are obtained through a process that does not, in some fashion, frustrate the interests of non-human animals. Even if locating byproducts obtained in this manner were a simple task, this would not quite reconcile the two, but rather eliminate the problem entirely.

The attempted reconciliation relied on the different interests at stake in the two cases; that is, eating meats without frustrating what some might call a right to life is practically impossible for any social person, whereas eating animal derivatives, in itself, does not frustrate such a right. It was likely the most intellectually lazy and abhorrent attempt that I have ever made to rationalize a morally odious behavior, and for it I am ashamed. But, it reminds me that I am not beyond disingenuous argumentation (in the sense that I might initiate an argument for a position I suspect is fallacious), and that I must be vigilant in removing these sorts of obstructions along the road to moral clarity.

So now I contemplate the proper course of action necessary to prevent suffering among those beings to which I have become sensitive. This question applies to most moral claims – once you make them, what call to action (if any) should you make? In many cases the direct approach is the least effective, particularly if the hurt or harm caused is not one that is either commonly accepted as a wrong or accepted as a wrong by the agent. The sentimental approach, while often effective, seems to lie on the most precarious ground. Reason is as reason does, and unorthodox methods are sketchy and unproven. What to do? The dilemma is astounding, really. The literature seemingly offers nothing of value to the awkward moral question of what action is appropriate when attempting to prevent a moral wrong through others. This is the type of question that causes moral aphasia, and neither I, nor anyone else, can afford the block.

And so here, again, I find myself, cruising along this road less traveled, saddled with pensive awe, tailgating like nobody’s business, desperately seeking that philosophical gem packaged and presented so economically, and hoping for insight within.

- AnthrAx

Hend's Comments for Cory's Final Narrative

Hend's Grade for Cory's Final Narrative (Scroll Down)

CoryGrade

Kevin's Remix and Subsequent Dialogue between Cory and Kevin

David's Remix and Cory's Response

SugarVegan

Blog Home