the Greater Nomadic Council

When I'm eating flesh, it is a meditation on the cruelty, shortness, and nastiness of existence, and my desire to be the eater rather than the eaten. If I am what I eat, I would prefer to be a cow or an ice cream sundae than celery.

Mostly, I enjoy visualizing what it would be like to eat other people at my table--big slabs of meat that they are.

Gee. Thanks for the oh-so-helpful response. Now I know to stay away from you in the future, psycho.

Seriously--I'm just not receptive to either utilitarian or rights-based arguments about reducing animal suffering. Maybe I should be. Certainly there is something to the wisdom that kindness to animals flows together with a civilized/nonaggressive disposition. And there are legitimate arguments to be made for vegetarianism as a healthy lifestyle option.

But none of it is enough to compel me to forego my irresponsible eating habits. Why renounce pleasure out of duty to animal rights? Somehow, obsession with animal rights seems like a symptom of a species with a bit too much ressentiment, a bit too much self-loathing. In the end, I don't see why my desires should be trumped by their rights, unless the reasoning deals with the relative good of human beings and our shared biological environment.

Well, first of all, I'm not asking for why you reject vegetarianism. Since eating-meat is the default position, I'm wondering more about the thought that goes into it. The only positive point I can take from your response is the pursuit of pleasure. Interestingly, that's one of the reasons/justifications I thought about for a fairly long time, so I assume it's also one of the main ones. One minor quibble, however. I think you're conflating veganism and vegetarianism. The former is the one most concerned with animal rights. There's certainly overlap between the two on this topic, but animal rights had little to nothing to do with my decision—largely an emotional one. I'm still undecided about animal testing and the like, but lean towards supporting most of it.

No Mallarme, I was under the impression you were a vegetarian out of health-related reasons, which I concede are numerous and well-grounded. But you say it's "emotional". Could you elaborate on your own position?

As for thought going into meat---well there isn't much in my case. It is simply a pleasurable habit well within the mainstream. What do I care if it is animal muscle?

Realistically, it's going to take a very hot girl to make me give meat up.

What? Health reasons? No, not at all. By emotional I mean: I love animals. It makes me sad to kill them. Therefore, I don't eat meat. I have other notions about it as well, but that's the strongest motivation for me and part of the reason why I don't talk about it much or criticize others for eating meat. It's not a rational or a spiritual choice, just a purely personal one.

I eat meat for a number of reasons:

1) I grew up that way and didn't really question it for years.

2) Health reasons; it's tough work to get the required amount of protien out of beans and vitamins. I know most meateaters have too much protien (not me, I don't think), but I'm certain that most veggies have too little. There are also certain essential amino acids that are only available in red meat--no veggie, fruit, or vitamin can give it to you.

3) An interesting and varied diet. I'm not saying that you can't achieve this on a veggie diet, but it's certainly much harder (and, I submit, impossible on a vegan diet) and, ultimately, less interesting and varied than is possible with meat.

4) Flavor. Ohhhh sweet Jesus I could eat a sheep right now.

5) As for animal empathy, I simply don't care. I think that people who eat meat but can't acknowledge that it comes from a formerly living animal that had friends and family and probably lived an artifically painful and truncated life, are fooling themselves. If I had to kill an animal before I could eat it, I don't think my habits would change much (other than the bolt gun hanging on the back of my door). I'm comfortable with where the meat comes from, and my only real complaint with production methods is hygenic, not empathetic, in nature. Anyway, haven't you heard of the "food chain"? (Cue Troy McClure with the diagram of Man eating everything.) Seriously--we're at the top, so I'm allowed to eat everything I want. Natural capitalism.

I could probably muster more coherent arguments, but that's a good survey for now. Maybe Ludwig will tell us about his Meatatarianism later.

2) Health reasons; it's tough work to get the required amount of protien out of beans and vitamins. I know most meateaters have too much protien (not me, I don't think), but I'm certain that most veggies have too little. There are also certain essential amino acids that are only available in red meat--no veggie, fruit, or vitamin can give it to you.

This point is incorrect. Vegetarians get plenty of protein and all the right amino acids simply from eating a varied diet. There's no need to plan, really. For a detailed breakdown of the amino acids needed and how one can get them, see this:

http://www.fatfree.com/FAQ/protein-myths

Another point is that even vegans tend to get more protein than is strictly necessary. There's no shortage of foods that have protein in them: bread, leafy vegetables, beans, milk, soy, and numerous fruits and other vegetables.

Anyway, haven't you heard of the "food chain"? (Cue Troy McClure with the diagram of Man eating everything.) Seriously--we're at the top, so I'm allowed to eat everything I want. Natural capitalism.

The underlying assumption here is that humans are just animals, too. While we certainly are animals, I think most people would disagree that that's *all* we are. The ability to make moral judgments and to feel compassion are two key components of what it is to be human. The question then should not be "are we at the top of the food chain?" (we certainly are), but "is it moral to eat animals?" Not asking the question (regardless if the answer is "yes" or "no") reduces us to animals following only instinct.

Really, the point of my post is to determine if most people have asked themselves about the morality of eating meat (perhaps the question is implicit in your food chain comment, but I can't tell). The answer is not important to me. Personally, I think the answer is "no", but as I pointed out earlier, that's not my primary motivation for being vegetarian, just another bit of weight on the scale.

Furthermore, I think that if "the unexamined life is not worth living" then how and what we eat must be included in that examination. Eating is, after all, one of the most fundamental and regular parts of our lives.

This point is incorrect. Vegetarians get plenty of protein and all the right amino acids simply from eating a varied diet. There's no need to plan, really.

You may get plenty of protein, but it's not accurate to say that all veggies get plenty of protein. I don't really have the time to go rummaging for links, but I'm sure that the ADA says a veggie diet can be nutritionally sound, but only with good planning. Vegans are at particularly high risk. I know you're not veggie for health reasons--if that were so, you would simply eat red meat less frequently.

On to the second part: Humans are just animals? What? That's entirely beside the point. If we are just animals, then yes--let us eat. If we are better than animals, then still--let us eat. If the only question is whether it is moral to eat animals, then let us eat morally.

Eating meat is just as moral as eating vegetables.

You may get plenty of protein, but it's not accurate to say that all veggies get plenty of protein. I don't really have the time to go rummaging for links, but I'm sure that the ADA says a veggie diet can be nutritionally sound, but only with good planning. Vegans are at particularly high risk. I know you're not veggie for health reasons--if that were so, you would simply eat red meat less frequently.

Luckily, I have the time:

http://www.eatright.org/Public/Other/index_adap1197.cfm

From the article:

It is the position of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

I imagine there are some vegetarians who do not get enough protein, but they'd have to be the minority. There are people who eat unhealthily no matter what they eat, so I'm sure there are some that also happen to be vegetarian as well. I would suspect that a great majority do eat a good diet, though. It's almost hard not to. As for vegans, I do think that diet is unhealthy, but not for lack of protein. They typically don't get enough B12 since that comes from eggs and other animal products. There are ways to have a healthy vegan diet (as the article points out), but it's significantly more difficult. Although the article continually discusses the need for a "well-planned vegetarian diet" that adjective can (and should) be applied to any diet. A poorly planned omnivorous diet is what has caused our nation to become so fat, after all.

On to the second part: Humans are just animals? What? That's entirely beside the point. If we are just animals, then yes--let us eat. If we are better than animals, then still--let us eat. If the only question is whether it is moral to eat animals, then let us eat morally.

My point is that if the only justification for eating meat is that humans are at the top of the food chain, then that justification is one that makes humans out to be merely animals. That is, if it's ok for the lion to eat meat because that's its nature, then it's ok for humans to eat meat because that's our nature. Similarly, since it's in man's nature to have sex with every female he finds attractive, that's ok too. You see the problem. Our position in the food chain is not enough by itself to justify eating meat unless you ignore humanity's ability to make moral decisions.

Eating meat is just as moral as eating vegetables.

Maybe. Potentially. I don't think it is as currently done and am not sure it ever is except in cases of need, but that's another discussion. My point for the post was not, after all, to justify my decision or criticize that of others, but only to discover the thoughts people have.

Really, the point of my post is to determine if most people have asked themselves about the morality of eating meat I have but haven't allowed myself to think about it too much because I am afraid I would come to the conclusion that it is wrong and I really don't want to quit eating meat.

Well, remember that Jesus ate fish. That's what my preacher grandfather told me when he found out I was a vegetarian. So there's nothing (that I know of, which isn't much admittedly) in the Bible that should make you come to that conclusion. Of course, a number of early Christians interpreted the Bible as recommending vegetarianism, so who knows? I've read a little bit about it online and it seems that, as with many other things, there's evidence for both sides.

Mallarme,

I feel like you are unintentionally backing into contradiction here. First you say your vegetarianism is emotional and has little to do with animal rights. Now you imply that vegetarianism is motivated by moral concerns. This is, IMO, just another way of saying that humans do not have the 'right' to kill animals needlessly. Of course, there is no strict seperation between actions stemming from emotional intuition/sentiment and moral reasoning, but I think once you express yourself in a 'universalist' fashion--that is, you imply there is a moral law that humans can discover--then you are definitely within the realm of rights-based moral reasoning. Yet if you agree with me that animal rights arguments are unconvincing (at least to the non-vegetarian), then all you have left to go on is sentiment--an argument no more sophisticated than ours.

I think of it this way. Since eating meat is historically grounded and widely accepted in our civilization and I find it pleasurable, then it is up to the vegetarian to prove to me why I shouldn't eat meat rather than me having to justify eating meat to the vegetarian (although in certain social situations, the reality is the latter). I have yet to hear arguments why eating meat is immoral or unwise enough to outweigh the relative pleasures that are convincing enough to make me stop.

Finally, we may be talking past each other, because for the present (and I'm always wavering on this)I am something of a Nietzschean when it comes to morality. For me, moral behavior is basically behavior that is good for the species, rather than the interpretation of natural law. The real argument in moral philosophy concerns what is good, as opposed to what is written. Natural law is a useful way of conceptualizing things and/or a useful guide to life, but we fetishize it at our own peril.

I feel like you are unintentionally backing into contradiction here. First you say your vegetarianism is emotional and has little to do with animal rights. Now you imply that vegetarianism is motivated by moral concerns. This is, IMO, just another way of saying that humans do not have the 'right' to kill animals needlessly. Of course, there is no strict seperation between actions stemming from emotional intuition/sentiment and moral reasoning, but I think once you express yourself in a 'universalist' fashion--that is, you imply there is a moral law that humans can discover--then you are definitely within the realm of rights-based moral reasoning. Yet if you agree with me that animal rights arguments are unconvincing (at least to the non-vegetarian), then all you have left to go on is sentiment--an argument no more sophisticated than ours.

There's a difference between how we normally conceive of "animal rights" and the question of whether eating meat is moral. Animal rights implies a whole complex of ideas dealing not just with eating animals, but how they are treated, how and if their products should be used, and if the should be eaten. While the question about meat-eating can be considered a subset of animal rights, it is not, in itself, enough to justify using the term. In a technical sense, yes, considering the morality of eating animals does, of course, have to do with animal rights, but since that term has a different meaning in common parlance, I disclaimed using it. With that background in mind, then I do find at least an aspect of the argument compelling. As for whether the argument is convincing, it seems a bit of a truism to say it isn't for non-vegetarians. Furthermore, sentiment is different from appetite. While sentiment may be less sophisticated than reason, it's similarly more so than appetite. I only claimed that emotion was the main reason for my decision, not the only. I have reason-based, um, reasons as well.

I think of it this way. Since eating meat is historically grounded and widely accepted in our civilization and I find it pleasurable, then it is up to the vegetarian to prove to me why I shouldn't eat meat rather than me having to justify eating meat to the vegetarian (although in certain social situations, the reality is the latter). I have yet to hear arguments why eating meat is immoral or unwise enough to outweigh the relative pleasures that are convincing enough to make me stop.

I am not trying to convince you. This discussion is helping me formulate an argument, though. However, I'm surprised to find you using history as a basis for moral judgments. Historically, capital punishment for minor crimes is the norm. I could continue with many more examples that are, if not rejected, at least morally questionable. Likewise, cultural acceptance is not a moral justification either. Vegetarianism has nearly as long a history as meat-eating even if it has usually been a minority practice... except, of course, in Hindu countries.

Finally, we may be talking past each other, because for the present (and I'm always wavering on this)I am something of a Nietzschean when it comes to morality. For me, moral behavior is basically behavior that is good for the species, rather than the interpretation of natural law. The real argument in moral philosophy concerns what is good, as opposed to what is written. Natural law is a useful way of conceptualizing things and/or a useful guide to life, but we fetishize it at our own peril.

Please unpack this statement. Are you essentially opposing utilitarianism (though at a species leve) against a more Platonic or Kantian one? By "what is written" you mean "natural law"? Finally, your last sentence seems to be a disclaimer against any set moral laws, is it not?

Hello,
Well with out getting to long winded.
The reason that I found it hard to eat chicken after watching the video clip, is that seeing something that violent rounding up chickens, it actually made me feel bad for the chicken. I wouldn't want to see cats or dogs treated like that.
As to why I eat meat... Well I like the taste. Now I have tried to eat less to no beef. Chicken I eat quite a bit. I love it but at the same time I am thinking about cutting back on it as well. Reason being is am concerned about the hormones that are used.
So there it is. In all my bad grammar.
Peace