On Vegetarianism

The ethics of food production seem dubious to me. Not in the sense that the intent is foul, but that it's a very easy and cheap way to guilt someone into an otherwise illogical emotional place. It shouldn't come to surprise to anyone that the process involved with removing the flesh from an animal has all the markings of a malicious ritual. Butchering is not something you do gently, and even if you alleviate some degree of pain, there's always empathy ready to remind you of how grotesque it feels. But that's the thing, there isn't an ethical way to skin a cow, chicken or pig if we were to substitute ourselves in that position. It doesn't exist in our world nor can it. Applying vegetarian ethics to the entirety of the animal product industry means abstinence from utilitarian progress.

The whole thought of being accountable about animals is tantamount to believing Animal Farm as a piece of future non-fiction. It is absurd to actually believe that our use of available resources and technology has an actual moral implication with a species that will not have a chance to develop past the human race, much less keep records of the atrocities we commit on them in the name of our own quality of life. This idea of carnivore-karma is hypothetical, and while it makes for a nice critical thinking exercise, there's nothing to it but self-generated feelings. None of the viewpoints I hold towards animals cross over into human territory. I have a different set of decision-making tools there. They are clearly marked. Anybody who says otherwise is underestimating my ability to distinguish between species.

I've heard the argument that our desensitization towards our food economy is a step towards a more apathetic and barbaric society. I would say that's true, but moral deterioration comes from every possible technological advancement that has been made in our history. If the consumer had to fight a bull every time to get a burger, we probably wouldn't have a significant craving for said burger. Life continually grows easier in some respects, and with that ease comes the natural 'meh' that results when we acquire a dependency. Therefore, it seems that while it is a bad thing to have a meat addiction, it is on the same level as having an craving for anonymity on the internet.

However, on a practical level, I love vegetarianism. The fact that it has a moral backing ensures that brilliant minds will work towards improving the quality of life of those prescribing to it, which produces delicious alternatives to practically everything. Also, periodic vegetarian bouts do wonders and the fact that people are dedicated to being support groups makes it that much easier to flux in and out of carnivorous feast or famine.

I am asserting that the goal of humanitarian slaughter isn't a good idea because no matter the amount of mitigation of pain you provide, the stance that we're helping them by making their deaths easier doesn't alleviate the core ethical conflict that comes with harvesting them in the first place. Therefore, it is an exercise in futility and serves as a cumbersome guilt generator.

In regards to utilitarianism, I don't believe that it is just numbers. Rather, the push towards human sustainability and efficiency inevitably comes with compromises like these. We're talking about one of the most noble things our people can do to help itself, mind you. Food production has an extraordinarily high utility, to the point where it is reasonable to have discussions on whether ethical considerations should be made.



It isn't absurd as a whole, but this particular instance maintains a very real and somber absence of a good ending. You reference that we should make steps towards creating a more human way of executing animals, but it's more of an emotional band-aid than an actual problem solver. Additionally, you know what the key difference between the bomb and animal cruelty? We can't use animal cruelty against ourselves in a military fashion. The line of demarcation is significant.



You just went into the karmic circle I was mentioning. There is nothing in reality that indicates that this will actually happen to humans. We will deal with it when we get there, but at this very moment, we're probably not going to have a substantial role reversal to where that question of suffering becomes applicable to us from the victim's perspective. Moreover, I would go as far as to say that it is insulting to assume that people are going to have such a low guard that they'll be duped into doing that to another human on a large scale within a realm of reasonableness.

This is the reality: We're not the pigs and we're not food. On a one-to-one scale, yes, we're deplorable, but we reasonably value human life over the value of that which we will eat. It goes back to my first point about how uphill the vegetarian proposition is. We have to stop eating pigs and stop considering pigs as food for this boiling pot analogy to be remotely equal.



I'm not saying it's a bad thing to try and curve it, but you're measuring a level of guilt that comes only after you've dwelled on it verses something that actually sustains people. While yeah, you can make the statement that meat companies are heartless bastards, but given that they have to supply to a large amount of perfectly reasonable people, I'm willing to cut them some slack on the basis that they're serving a greater, more tangible ethical need.




Haha, yeah, that doesn't make sense. I apologize. However...

You talk about having meat shoved in your face, but it seems to me that meat is actively pursued by many and therefore this victim position doesn't actually reflect itself in reality. It is provided not out of spite but out of demand. This is a convincing picture you're painting, but it's not an accurate depiction of what is going on.