Response to Becky

In a post made today, Becky asks if there can be found a solid reason for not being a vegetarian that does not lie within taste preference. Before answering this question, I would like to take a snap at a couple other of her points.

"I have a hard time comprehending the argument that, someone is too busy to be a vegetarian."


While I can see where Becky is coming from in terms of meal preparations, I can also see the flip side of this argument and tend to agree with it more. Taking a trip to the grocery store and searching for vegetarian options is often much longer than say someone who simply needs ground beef and a box of Hamburger Helper. It's not as simple as looking at a label of something and saying, "Alright, this seems vegetarian friendly!" Rather, I am often forced to look at ingredients and really check to make sure there are no animal products or byproducts. And in addition, vegetarians have to cook a wider variety of meals that are usually very extensive in order to get all the necessary nutrients. So yes, I think it is very time-consuming.


"The Peer pressure argument, is not valid by itself"


It most definitely is. Sarah made a good point in class today from Fast Food Nation which I have also read. Vegetarian options are very limited at many fast-food restaurants. Thus, when you are going out with your friends, often your preferences will sway the group. In addition, when a friend has you over for dinner, they will make sure to prepare something vegetarian for you and possibly everyone to consume. Purchasing and eating power shift in a vegetarian direction. On the other side, meat eating is heavily influenced by peer pressure. Why become a vegetarian when my family and friends all consume meat? Why pay more money for something I can get for a $1 at Burger King? The reasons are numerous, both close to and far from home.


Now with those points addressed, I will address the main question at hand about something other than taste preference deciding vegetarianism. First, I believe you could use any one of the above two as a very valid excuse. I hear them every single day from everyone around me.We don't see them as legitimate, but to the meat-eater they are.


One could also argue that you are selling them "liberal propaganda" in order to stop the consumption of animals and pervert the natural order. I hear this from my family mostly every other week. The facts aren't there! The facts are made up! People love the truth, but they hate the facts. And it makes ignorance a truly blissful cheeseburger to devour.


Another argument could be the many social and political ramifications we have discussed. The farming industry is heavily subsidized and provides a significant amount of jobs. And it's not just agriculture, but those who supply their products. If McDonald's went out of business next year due to a mass vegetarian movement, can you just imagine the economic and social chaos? It would be madness. Nobody would want that on their hands.


Now, sure, I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but I think you see the point. As Jacob said, nothing is black and white. To say something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong is all a matter of preference and conviction. I wish more people had the conviction that animal consumption is wrong, but that's not the case. And until they do, the above arguments will continue to be argued. We can only hope that by offering solutions to these things that there will be a slow movement in the other direction. 


Until then, I will continue to be a vegetarian and spread the knowledge this course has provided me with far and wide.

A Solution for Consumption of Animals?

In class today, Becca made me think of something interesting. She stated that one of the major reasons that animal flesh should not be consumed is because in order to do so you are cutting that life short. We are taking away the potential for life that this animal may or may not have had, but did have an entitlement to. However, her next statement raised my curiosity, as she stated that locally grown animals are treated in a humane manner and are slaughtered as such too. Thus, taking their "potential for life" is not nearly as harshly robbed from them. Or at least I think this is what she was going for.

Now I would like to point out one thing: no cow, even those slaughtered on local farms, are allowed to live out to their prime. To do so allows for meat to lose quality and subsequent taste/value. All farms raise cattle to a peak point of youth and maturity and then kill them as to capture freshness.

Now I agree with Becca in the sense that consuming animal flesh does deny the possibility for life lived beyond the butcher's knife. That makes perfect and clear sense. What I'm wondering is if one would consider the consumption of an animal that died of natural causes alright? Could we justify that? The animal is already dead and gone, having felt no pain inflicted by humans. Thus, it would seem we might be able to.

The Ruin of Man

I spoke of this in my Q&A response, but I want to discuss it here too for all to see.

In one of my anthropology classes, I had the pleasure of reading an article entitled The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jared Diamond. In short, Diamond asserts that humanities' move from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian society was, as the title states, the worst mistake in the history of the human race. Now, I wouldn't go that far as to suggest the title is appropriate, but I do agree with Diamond's major assertions.

In "primitive" societies, people hunted and gathered only what they needed. Everything was utilized to the very last drop. Once all the meat was consumed, fur was used for warmth and bones for medicine. Or so was the usual case. In addition, this style of consumption represented the very first example of "socialism" in practice, even before its inception. Essentially, each according to his own ability.

But suddenly, with an agrarian society, man began to tear at the fabric of this socialist utopia. Large plots of land had to be taken from wildlife in order to begin to cultivate. Animals had to be heavily subjected and domesticated. A class society began to form, as there were suppliers and managers. And eventually, humanity consolidated its food supply. Variety in nutrients and overall biodiversity slowly declined. Man began to experience more bouts with the illnesses that plague us most today. Thus, agrarian society deserves a lot more critical of a look.

However, to relate this to class material, I wanted to know people's thoughts on genetic engineering of animals as the next step in the perversion of the food supply?

Response to Kelsey

Kelsey asked if it is morally justifiable to genetically engineer animals if they are not harmed. I assert that it absolutely is not in any way. I justified this a little bit in my Q&A and also in a previous discussion we had about levels of animal harm.

With any level of genetic engineering, there has to be pain and discomfort involved. We discussed in an earlier class that while there are different levels of pain and discomfort, these levels still exist. Studies proved that removing an animal from its habitat and/or subjecting it to any sort of "experimentation" caused the animal's stress level to rise significantly. Now unless genetic engineering can now be done on the open field, which I highly doubt that it can, then you would have to subject the animal to these conditions. The animal would no doubt have discomfort and stress, thus making the act unjustifiable.

Also, I think we are abusing our moral agent status by doing this to animals. It's probably safe to say that no animal would actually desire to be genetically engineered in any way. They have lived happy and content lives for thousands of years without such interference. It's ludicrous and pretty arrogant to think we could help in any way.

In addition, altering species like this simply leads to a bad place. We supplant creation for existence. We decide that we can not cope with existing animals and so we modify them as we see fit. We could poison our food system. Maybe we could even alter them so far as to make ourselves the hunted.

It all goes scary places and the benefits of it are not justifiable in any way. At least to me.

Question: Is transgenesis and animal experimentation an abuse of moral agent status?

The Shehitah

Norman Solomon outlines for us the Torah's view of meat-eating. In his essay, he states that people of the Jewish faith are not to consume meat unless the shehitah has been performed on it. Norman Solomon states that this process of slaughter involves, "...a single sharp cut across the trachea and esophagus" (281). Furthermore, it can only be performed by a 'qualified religious expert' within a special area which is to eliminate undue stress on the animal in its last moments. Furthermore, this method is said to be used by the Jewish faith because we owe animals the dignity of a painless slaughter. This method gives that, because they allegedly lose consciousness before the pain from the cut sets in upon them.

I guess I'm bringing this up partially because we discussed it in class today, but also because I find the whole thing to be a big charade. As you all know, I have qualms with religion as it is, but I will try to keep those separate from the argument I am about to make.

First, the justification for the method itself is completely ludicrous. The Jewish faith considers this slit in the animal's throat to be the most humane and painless way of death for an animal. Now I'm no expert on the slaughter of most animals, but I have seen the slaughter of a chicken. And I've seen this firsthand, so I can speak to it. In the "most humane" of circumstances on a local family farm where I'm from, chickens are hung upside down to have their throats cut in almost the same way as the Jewish process. The one difference is that their jugular vein is usually cut so that they bleed out faster. But the end goal is the same: a bled out chicken who has had its throat slit.

Now I can tell you that chicken felt that cut. And he/she felt it for a solid two to three minutes. They twitch about and make a terrible gurgling noise as life leaves their body. The blood drains into a bucket below the chicken, which they can no doubt see, regardless of if they can understand it or not, for that is another debate in entirely. But I can ultimately say, this is in no way humane. There is a good deal of suffering here, so I can assume there is suffering in the Jewish tradition as well. Now if you have scientific evidence saying otherwise, then by all means post away. In absence of that, I'll stick to my assertions.

Second, I wonder if Jewish people believe this is more humane because it does not simply reflect the factory farming system we have adopted on a mass scale today. However, I'm also wondering if Jewish people will consume animals raised on a factory farm as long as the shehitah is performed upon it. And if they did, I wonder if you could really consider this humane or justified. Does tradition trump morality? We touched this briefly today, but here's an application of it.

And I guess that's my question for all of you here: Is the shehitah morally justifiable because it is part of a longstanding tradition? Does tradition give credence to wrong?

Response to Jake

Jake asked if it was morally acceptable to own another being. I think this is indeed very important and that we have been bumping over it heavily in class. Allow me to clarify before I begin that I am justifying the ownership of beings as they refer to animals. In no way do I make a defense of slavery or any other time of human bondage.

Now, in regards to animals, I do think it can be morally acceptable to own an animal. I believe we have touched upon the concerns that most people would have regarding care, treatment, etc. of said animal. The animal deserves respect and care just like that of any other being. I mean this in the very basic sense of the word because I believe you could retort here by saying slavery would then be justified. But slavery is a sort of subjection of the human soul and a degradation of existence. I do not think you can aptly compare the two here.

But, I believe that if the animal is cared for with the utmost of respect, then you start to ascend to a mutual existence instead of ownership. For example, I own a small robo-dwarf hamster. He is just over two months old and he's a lot of fun. Left to his own devices, he may have been killed by now. He may have stayed in the pet store until he died from sickness or loneliness. Or worse yet, he may have made his way into the hands of someone cruel. In this strange sense, it's as if I've rescued him. And as he grows, I continue to rescue him.

I provide his food, his home, safety, security, and anything else he will need to live out his three to four years of life. In the wild, it is likely that this highly intelligent rodent would not last long. But here, we have formed a mutual bond. My care for his company has caused us to reach a mutual understanding of sorts. And though he does try to escape once in awhile out of pure curiosity, he will not resist coming back into my hand and heading back into the cage.

In the same broader sense, many animals function in this way. I recall the YouTube clip that went viral a couple years back which showed a lion that was raised in captivity for many years of its life. After having lived in the wild for many years, the old caretaker returned and the animal 'attacked' him with love. If you haven't see this, then check it out.

So yes, I would assert ownership is acceptable, because I think it ultimately transcends that. It puts us back in touch with something we have lost: connections with other beings.

Question: Is animal ownership the key to ending animal cruelty?

Epstein Goes to Extremes

In his article entitled The Dangerous Claims of the Animal Rights Movement, Richard Epstein asserts that the assertions Steve Wise and other animal rights activists are not only wrong, but also a danger to human society. After outlining some of the "crazy ideas" of animal rights activists, Epstein states that, "...if systematically implemented, would pose a mortal threat to human society that few human beings would, or should, accept" (604). I have another assertion: Epstein is the radical here. Allow me to clarify.

First, Epstein really doesn't present a morally-based argument very well. He simply states that, "...one difference stands out: through thick and thin, animals do not have the capacity of higher cognitive language and thought that characterizes human beings as a species..." (601). Really? Is that so? I seem to recall that dolphins and other aquatic animals have a very developed form of underwater communication. In fact, we have discussed that many animals speak in ways of their own that we cannot understand. I assert that this is their language, just as French would be to a French person. I do not understand it, but I know it to be language.

Next, Epstein makes this wild assertion that by equating human and ape DNA together, animal rights activists must also consider that we may be related to the horse, dog and cow (602). This is like asserting that the hamster and the shark have the same DNA. Evolution has weeded out and replaced strands of DNA within species. An ignorance of modern science will produce a comment like Epstein's. It just so happens that humans and apes are evolved from the same strands. Thus, we still share a good amount of traits.

But not long after this is where Epstein starts to get radical in his own right. He states that, "The early society that did not rely on animals for food, for labor, for warfare was the society that did not survive to yield the heightened moral sensibilities of today" (602). What a statement! I seem to recall that most Native Americans did not just hunt, but also gathered. In fact, gathering was a major source of nutrition for them. And as I also recall, it was the meat-eating, profit-desiring, animal-slaughtering Westerner that took care of them.

However, Epstein doesn't stop there. He then takes the extreme of Gary Francione and somehow applies it to the entire animal rights movement. The theory of one man is not science. Just as one idea is not philosophy. So do not suggest it.

And finally, Epstein goes off his rocker with the statement, "The principle of first possession should therefore block us from clearing the land for farms, homes, and factories unless we can find ways to make just compensation to each individual animal for its own losses" (603). How is this even a suggestion? And how was it extrapolated? Human beings have lived peacefully with animals, in co-habitation, for thousands of years. The system we have now, one of pollution and exploitation, has perverted such an existence. We do owe animals a respect, just as we would hopefully respect another human's right to property and life.

But in the end, Epstein does not believe this. He follows up in summation by saying, "We should not undermine, as would surely be the case, the liberty and dignity of human beings by treating animals their moral equals and legal peers" (604). So there you have it. Epstein is the radical here. He picks apart the radicals of this movement and then makes a statement of his own which is just as radical. Giving animals liberty and dignity would no doubt trash human ability to have the same.

I do apologize if I come across snide or angered, but I am. And I hope that someone responds to my claims here, as well as Epstein's, in order to spur some discussion.

Question: Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor? (This sort of goes back to our discussion of space and care for animals; sorry to bring it back it but I don't think it was done justice.)