Not Everyone Can Be A Vegetarian

There seems to be an assumption made by a lot of animal rights activists that anyone can be a vegetarian. Nobody has to eat meat; they choose to. Everybody can give it up if they try hard enough. This argument really bothers me. After reading "Animal, Vegetable, or Women?" by Katherine Paxton-George for my book review, I've become aware of the many reasons why people might not be as suited for vegetarianism as others. When I wrote my Q&A from a few months ago where we had to state under what conditions vegetarianism was morally obligatory, I kept thinking of more and more examples of cases where vegetarianism should not be morally obligatory. It got to the point where I was making so many "exceptions" to the moral superiority of vegetarianism, that it just didn't make sense to ever say that vegetarianism is morally obligatory. I can't even account for every reason somebody might have to eat meat. I personally can't be a vegetarian or vegan because I have a history of disordered eating. Despite the fact that I don't even like the taste of meat, officially banning it from my diet reminds me too much of when I would restrict my food intake for dieting purposes. Also, making food a moral issue (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't sometimes be a moral issue) reminds me of "good foods" and "bad foods" in the dieting/eating disorder world. I don't want the food I eat to define how good or bad of a person I am, even if it's somewhat true. It may sound like I am making this about myself, but people who claim that "anybody can be a vegetarian" and "nobody needs to eat meat" are making it about themselves by making themselves the standard for everybody else (if they can live without meat, then so can everyone else). So many voices have been silenced so that privileged groups can tell everybody else how they should be living their life, and that seems to counterproductive in a movement where there is supposed to be empathy for beings with less power and freedom.

A Consumer's Responsibility?

Today in class we discussed the fact that when you buy animal products, you are supporting a corrupt industry. Nobody wants to fund something that they believe to be immoral, whether it is animal or human exploitation, but is it the consumer's responsibility, or the industry's? I wonder if we are placing too much moral responsibility on the consumer. To be sure, consumers have a responsibility both to themselves and to society to be informed about their economic choices. But, as we have discussed in class, not everybody has complete autonomy over their options for where they shop, what they eat, and what they buy. Therefore, while I believe that consumers should definitely assume some responsibility for what they are putting their money into, I think we need to hold the corporations that we are opposed to primarily responsible. Supporting something immoral is obviously not good, but being immoral is the real problem. I think we spend a lot of time focusing on how to get people to stop indirectly supporting these corrupt systems, when we should also be challenging the systems themselves.

Response to Shelby, "Killing Animals and The Bible"

"So, my question is: does it matter from whence an ethic comes, if the ethic is correct?"

I think that it matters a lot. A person who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and a person who just doesn't eat meat because he or she doesn't like the taste of it probably won't have much in common. There are so many different paths that can lead to the right thing; what really matters is why somebody is doing (or trying to do) the right thing. I actually believe the opposite of what Shelby is saying; I think that a person's intentions matter more than the actual outcome. In other words, the ends do not always justify the means but the means might justify the ends. For example, somebody who is committed to the ethical treatment of animals, and tries really hard to be a vegan but slips up every once in a while is doing a better job of being a moral person than somebody who doesn't care about animal rights, but always refrains from eating animal products for other reasons (religion, health, personal preference).

Response to Hallie, "The Yuck Factor"

Hallie wrote that the "yuck factor" of animal experimentation, as well as examples brought up in class such as pedophilia and incest, is not enough to justify deeming it immoral. She says that, in the cases of pedophilia and incest, there may be a "yuck factor" because we have been socialized to view them as wrong, but they can also be proven immoral on more rational grounds. I think that pedophilia can be proven to be immoral, because it involves children who cannot consent, but incest between consenting adults does not seem to harm anyone, and I am not sure why we are morally opposed to it. As I brought up in class, there is the fact that children conceived through incest are more likely to have deformities, but that is not the only reason we don't like it. There is just something about incest that makes people feel uncomfortable. Hallie brings up the example of homosexuality, which I think is a good example of the "yuck factor". Many people would probably describe homosexuality the way I described incest; "there's just something about it that seems so wrong". "It's so unnatural". I agree with Hallie that these vague feelings of discomfort are not enough to deem something immoral. However, in that case I do not see why incest is illegal (and considered immoral). Does anybody have a good defense for the widely held claim that incest is immoral that doesn't involve the "yuck factor"?

Sacrifice and Vegetarianism

In class, we have talked about the ties between vegetarianism and religion. In our society, I think we tend to value people who are self-sacrificing. We see it as noble, even though it can be a bad thing. This probably stems from religion (martyrs, Jesus' death, etc). I don't know much about religion, but I was raised Catholic and I know that in church, everywhere you look, there is a depiction of Jesus on the cross. Dying for a cause can sometimes be a very noble and brave thing to do, but I take issue with our culture's glamorization of self-sacrificing. People who are constantly sacrificing their own happiness for others are unhappy, and nobody should have to live that way. I think this might tie back to vegetarianism, because for many people, giving up meat is a sacrifice. More extremely, starvation is a sacrifice many people make for religious or spiritual reasons. Though I am not suggesting there is a direct link between eating disorders and vegetarianism, I think that this element of sacrifice is present in both. Having the "strength" to give up types of food, or food in general, is seen as heroic and respectable. There is a book (which I have not yet read) called "Women, Food, and God", which argues that the way women eat can be traced back to their relationship with religion/God. I think this is interesting, and I think the way we value sacrifice in our society could have something to do with this.
Question: Other than the religious implications, why do we value sacrifice so much?

PETA is at it again

In response to the new TSA scans, in which people must go through an invasive full-body scan in order to fly on an airplane, PETA has released a new and insulting ad:

There is a lot that is wrong with this ad. It makes many assumptions, such as:

• Being vegan will necessarily make you healthier.
• Being healthy necessarily gives you a thin, "sexy" body.
• Vegans and/or healthy people can't be fat.
  
• The only reason people don't want to go through the TSA scans is because they are ashamed of their unattractive bodies, not because it is an invasion of privacy that many people are not comfortable with.

The last one is especially annoying to me. There are so many reasons people might not want a random person to see them naked; chances are it is not because they are embarrassed about how fat they are. I think PETA knows this, and they are making light of a serious problem and using it to further their agenda (and I'm not implying that there is anything wrong with their agenda, but the TSA debate has nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals). Luckily, most airports refused to post these ads because they do not want to take a political stance on animal rights. That is the wrong reason for doing the right thing. These ads are meant to shame women (I wont believe that it's just a coincidence that it is a woman's body in the picture). Putting these ads out further contributes to the idea that women's bodies are public property, which is exactly what is wrong with the TSA scans in the first place (of course, both men and women are being subjected to TSA scans, but the scans are treating people's bodies like government property. And victims of sexual assault, which is usually women, are less likely to be comfortable with the body scans).
Question: Why is PETA the most well-known animal rights group if their methods of effecting change are so problematic?

Response to Todd, "The Shehitah"

Todd asked if tradition trumps morality. If something is a part of somebody's culture, can it still be deemed morally "right" or "wrong"? This depends on how you view morality. If you believe that morality is shaped by a person's culture and environment, and everybody has their own subjective idea of morality, then I think tradition would trump morality. However, if you believe that there is an objective morality that transcends people's constructed cultures and traditions, than tradition does not trump morality. I believe the latter argument. I think that what is "right" and "wrong" applies to everybody, regardless of who they are and what their traditions are. After all, it could be argued that it is just a part of American culture to fight wars, but that doesn't mean war is not ethically problematic. Challenging our actions on the basis of morality is hard, because nobody wants to believe that something that is an important part of their life (such as religion or culture) is wrong. However, the things that mean the most to us are the things that really need to be challenged.
Question: Do you think morality is objective or subjective?