Driving down the highway one day, listening to music, who know what or why, a bumper sticker caught my eye. Generally these obtrusive graffitis don’t merit my attention, but I had incidentally coasted close enough to the car in front of me for it to not be ignored. The statement seemed to pass through my thoughts for moment, as a simple observation. Then it came back.
It read, “if animals could talk the we would all be vegetarians.”
Surely not cannabilists! But who knows. If vagina’s could talk, would I be gay? If my hand could talk, would I ever masturbate again? If my girlfriend’s ears or nose could talk, would I maybe not stay up so late at night? What about my dog? In any case my answer to most of these questions is yes.
“If animals could talk I WOULD be a vegetarian,” I said to myself well coasting right by my exit. When finally arriving home I explained my predicament with anyone who would have concern and decided to never eat meat again.
In retrospect, this was a very rash decision. These decisions should generally not be made without deep contemplation, as I have learned as of recent. This decision is a morally correct one to be made, but upon further research I have found that it is not enough.
Through all of my reasoning I have not been able to justify the use and consumption of animal byproducts. How can it be wrong to keep animals in a low quality of life just to be eaten at the end, and perfectly fine to have them at that same quality of life for me to take from them continuously throughout their lives? Some may argue that the animals destined for death, are being shown mercy. Therefore the task set before me is to go from vegetarian to vegan. After this transition, the next step is to make the vegan lifestyle more accessible to myself, as well as the rest of the world. If the moral obligation is to better the quality of the lives of animals, then I am just the first step. Not to say that everyone will become or should become vegan, but if the options are out there. How many people eat meat with every meal because there are no other alternatives? How many people are sympathetic to animals and don’t know the extent to which they are being mistreated? Surely they would dedicate less of their diet to meat if they knew it would help. But for now, I am vegan.
KevinRb
Cory's Original Narrative
My answer to most of these questions is yes? WTF? - Cory
I do think everyone should be vegan insofar as their consumption of meats or derivatives allows for needless suffering. There are, though, countless scenarios where one could consume meats/derivatives without causing needless suffering (directly or indirectly), in which case, a vegan diet would not be morally required. - Cory
"Not to say that everyone will become or should become vegan, but if the options are out there." I was hitting on that a bit in this statement, I just didn't go into a deeper explanation. Of course we don't all have to be vegan. It's just an extreme to come to an ends, yes? At this point in time, people could also only buy from sources that are known to treat their animals right. Like most farmers who have "free range chickens" and their derivatives. Then again, it is debatable whether all these farms are treating the non human animals as well as the name sounds, so further research is always recomended. -Kevin
I'm not sure what you mean by "extreme," but I think it is better described as an imperative. I don't believe there is any "factory-farmed" case included in the "countless scenarios" to which I was alluding - not one! Further, "free range" is a joke.
To make the point clear, I'll offer an example I often use.
If an animal were to "die of old age," and if there were no other animals that had a stake in the remains of that animal, then, using appropriate tact in the method of consumption, one could eat that animal without committing an immoral act.
As an aside, I am quite surprised that we have not had this exact conversation before, insomuch as I have this sort of discussion often with strangers. I don't even know you, man... - Cory
Cory's Transcription of a Phone Conversation (continued from wiki discussion):
I guess what I mean by extreme is radical. So, veganism is a radical means to the end (eliminating suffering). - Kevin
I do not see how it is radical. - Cory
It's radical in that it is not necessary. You could, for example, purchase meats from a truly free-range farmer. I would argue that, in fact, you should support free-range farmers (again, both as means to the aforementioned end). - Kevin
I think it is necessary, though, and for two reasons. One, animal husbandry is only the initial stage of production, and as such, even the most humane rearing does not eliminate all sources of suffering. Two, there is the question of weighing human interests as greater than non-human, and I have never come across the defense of farming non-human animals that adequately explains this discrepancy.
Incidentally, I am foremost a vegan because I believe it a virtuous act - it is a moral necessity. While I do believe it critical that this suffering be eliminated (that is the point), I do not look at my own veganism as a solution. And, while you are correct in asserting that I ought to support truly free-range farms (assuming I thought they presented no moral problems), I think such action would be of little matter.
I think my actions, here, are analogous to my actions in the realm of politics. If, for example, I supported a particular political agenda, the least demanding, but also least effective means of support would be the vote. Supporting a campaign financially would be far more beneficial. So, too, is my personal veganism the least demanding and least effective means of supporting any particular veganistic ethic (though it would certainly be hypocritical to not practice what I preach). So, even if I thought that meat derived from a truly free-range farm created no moral problems, it would seem that buying products from a free-range farmer would hardly be an effective means of effecting change, whereas other means of support (namely subsidizing the farms, or directly advertising) would be of greater benefit. The rational choice, arguably, is not to practice veganism.
In any event, while I find truly free-ranged farming less offensive than conventional factory farming, it's still offensive. For reasons mentioned in the first paragraph of this response, I cannot support truly free-range farmers. - Cory
I hope I did not pervert any of your claims, Kevin. The disparity in paragraph size tells me that I may have summarized your statements while paraphrasing mine...probably not a good thing. - Cory
And that's fine, but those who value the luxury of meat eating above the suffering of an animal through death, but do value the quality of life of the animal throughout most of it's life, should support free range farmers. If everyone who holds these principles would support the industry, then this would be about as effectively supporting them financially. Governmental subsidies would be great, and as mentioned of voting, this will only happen once many people support free range farmers. -Kevin
DiFf
NoExcuses
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.