Ought Implies Can Part II: Food and Morality

In class we have talked about physical health and financial situations that would make it hard for someone to be a vegetarian. Something we haven't spoken about yet is psychological reasons for not becoming a vegetarian. When someone is recovering from an eating disorder they are often told not to restrict their diet. Having "off-limits" food can lead people back into eating disorder habits. Even for someone who has completely recovered from an eating disorder, they might have to follow this rule for the rest of their lives to avoid a relapse. For many people with eating disorders/disordered eating habits, they become a vegetarian or vegan, not for ethical reasons, but as a way to control their lives or as a form of self-punishment. Since many people have eating disorders (8 million Americans*), people who have psychological reasons for not eating meat are not a small exception; they are a large portion of the population. When we talk about people being "morally obligated" to adopt a certain diet, we are implying that people can be "good" or "bad" depending on what they eat. Our society has a tendency to assign morality to food and people who eat certain foods. For example, how often do we hear someone say "I was so bad last night. I ate a piece of chocolate" or "I need to be good for the rest of the week and only eat X amount of calories". Why is a person "good" or "bad" because of what they eat? Obviously, consuming animals has moral implications, but we should blame the industries that mistreat their animals, not regular people who are eating something that they have been exposed to their whole lives.

*http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm

"Ought Implies Can": A Response to "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism"

In James Rachels' article, "The Basic Argument For Vegetarianism", he says that we should adopt a vegetarian diet because there is no real reason to eat meat; we can survive without it. He implies that the only reason people aren't ethical vegetarians is because they like the way meat tastes. Rachels is overlooking many people who do not have food security. Food security is when food is available and accessible to you. While buying vegetables may be cheaper than buying meat, to carefully plan out a diet that includes protein and iron from other sources takes time, knowledge, and probably more money. As Kathryn Paxton George points out in "A Paradox of Ethical Vegetarianism", not everybody has access to or can afford dietary supplements. Also, people are more likely to become an ethical vegetarian when they have access to knowledge about the way their food is made. Not everybody is privileged enough to go to college, or even finish high school. Because not all people have the same education level, not everybody is enlightened about the cruel ways animals are made into meat. So, people might not be able to be an ethical vegetarian because they 1) don't have access to all the foods/supplements necessary for a vegetarian diet and 2) don't have access to the knowledge that leads people to become ethical vegetarians. Rachels, and many other people who propose that everybody should adopt a vegetarian diet, are assuming that everybody can. Vegetarianism and veganism are lifestyles. It is an ethical decision to stop eating/using animal products but it also dictates the way a person will live. Since not all people have the same resources, it is unfair to assume that all people are capable of living their life a certain way.

Question: What changes need to be made so everyone can adopt a vegetarian/vegan diet?