Nothing that is about to follow is particularly original. In fact, this topic is so much in the ether that one more opinion on it will not tip the scale in any way. But I do hope to be able to engage interested friends and acquaintances within the non-threatening context of a leisurely online conversation and hope to discuss some of the recurring lines said and stances taken.
Locus standi:
I am myself a non-vegetarian, although I don't really have meat more than once in two weeks on average. I have had beef but am not particularly fond of it. I like certain kinds of pork, and I like turkey in sandwiches. Haven't experimented with a whole lot of other meats. I also love my veggies and fruits. I love cooking and do it often for myself and family and friends.
What I do not believe is okay:
Invoking any sort of moral superiority to back one's stance at any point in the spectrum. I have endured hours of vegan and carnivorous proselytizing and it really only just pushed me further away. If it is your purpose to win over people to your side, it does not serve said purpose to make another human being feel like an asshole for holding a differing opinion. Besides, resorting to a "higher" moral authority only undermines your own: is it not an argument in favour of your chosen lifestyle if you chose it because of its inherent virtues?
Having the government determine what one should eat. It is quite ridiculous for the state to intervene in personal choices like diet. Beyond promoting or (more rarely) discouraging production or consumption of any food products for economic or public health reasons, a neutral, primarily administrative body has no business dictating what people should put in their systems.
Using violent images and rhetoric to shame or guilt people into eating differently. While it is true that we should be cognisant of the actual cost of our indulging ourselves with foie gras or even scrambling eggs for breakfast, and owe it to ourselves as intelligent human beings to be informed about the ways of the world, it is our individual prerogative to find out about this in whatever mode and to whatever extent we find suitable. Clouding news feeds with stomach turning images and stories does not usually do more than just invite "unfollowing."
No, these are not strong arguments:
Any stance that is primarily in opposition to a perceived threat or source of oppression can become self-defeating. To eat or not eat meat in defiance only gives more agency to whatever one is protesting. In short, don't just eat shit because a religion, caste, or colleague you find annoying says you should not.
Equating killing animals with killing plants. (This is where we enter more sensitive ground.) While it is true that plants too are "living" creatures, they do not have the same complex nervous systems that animals like hens, cows, pigs, and goats too. They do not feel pain in the same sense, and they most certainly do not have the same intense drive to avoid being killed that most animals we eat do. Make no mistake, an animal in an abattoir will do everything within its power to continue living. Furthermore, we primarily eat fruits and vegetables which literally exist to be consumed so that the seed of the plant can propagate. Plants are allowed to keep regrowing and not killed in their entirety for food. In any case, eating meat is no answer to stopping plant murder because the animals we eat have been fed vegetarian fodder while alive anyway. The only time this argument holds some water is if one is prepared to go the extreme route where harming any living thing is verboten (and consequently, you live off only what is already dead and so on), but in terms of the extent of violence committed in the two cases, they are really not comparable.
Things I know now to be true:
Animals are more often than not kept in absolutely appalling conditions in slaughter houses. Being aware of this fact is important in our general attempt at being more conscious and deliberate humans.
The concept of "humane meat" is iffy at best. Till about a week ago, this was my go-to consolation. That free range meat and eggs are better because the animals haven't been tormented while alive. While this may be true, the fact remains that these creatures are being reared and killed primarily for our consumption - a consumption that is not entirely critical to our existence.
The pragmatic fact that my turning vegetarian or vegan will not end animal cruelty. Even if I am able to convert a sizable chunk of the population into doing the same, consuming animals and products derived thereof will most likely remain a part of our lives. We can choose to look at this as either doing it anyway because we believe in it, or not bothering because ultimately the animal we would've consumed, someone else will. This interpretation and choice can only be personal.
That there is a limit to how much one can restrict one's negative impact on the world. No matter what lifestyle one chooses, there will be some costs incurred by an uninvolved third party due to the choices we make. We can at best try to minimize the harm we inflict unto others (in all our practices) and remain, true to our name, sapient.
So, which side are you on, anyway?
It is no doubt somewhat hypocritical to be this aware of the wrongs of meat eating and still persist in it. I have been a vegetarian for about two years in my life and will, in all likelihood, return to it in the future. There are also several valid points against vegetarianism that I haven't really covered here (historically meat-eating humans, cultivating corn and soy and producing tofu can be just as damaging to the environment, etc.). But my point is this - if you want to eat something, go ahead and do it. But forcing it on others, or using specious arguments to clear one's conscience, is unfair and lazy. And ideally, the choice of what we ingest should be made on our own.
Locus standi:
I am myself a non-vegetarian, although I don't really have meat more than once in two weeks on average. I have had beef but am not particularly fond of it. I like certain kinds of pork, and I like turkey in sandwiches. Haven't experimented with a whole lot of other meats. I also love my veggies and fruits. I love cooking and do it often for myself and family and friends.
What I do not believe is okay:
Invoking any sort of moral superiority to back one's stance at any point in the spectrum. I have endured hours of vegan and carnivorous proselytizing and it really only just pushed me further away. If it is your purpose to win over people to your side, it does not serve said purpose to make another human being feel like an asshole for holding a differing opinion. Besides, resorting to a "higher" moral authority only undermines your own: is it not an argument in favour of your chosen lifestyle if you chose it because of its inherent virtues?
Having the government determine what one should eat. It is quite ridiculous for the state to intervene in personal choices like diet. Beyond promoting or (more rarely) discouraging production or consumption of any food products for economic or public health reasons, a neutral, primarily administrative body has no business dictating what people should put in their systems.
Using violent images and rhetoric to shame or guilt people into eating differently. While it is true that we should be cognisant of the actual cost of our indulging ourselves with foie gras or even scrambling eggs for breakfast, and owe it to ourselves as intelligent human beings to be informed about the ways of the world, it is our individual prerogative to find out about this in whatever mode and to whatever extent we find suitable. Clouding news feeds with stomach turning images and stories does not usually do more than just invite "unfollowing."
No, these are not strong arguments:
Any stance that is primarily in opposition to a perceived threat or source of oppression can become self-defeating. To eat or not eat meat in defiance only gives more agency to whatever one is protesting. In short, don't just eat shit because a religion, caste, or colleague you find annoying says you should not.
Equating killing animals with killing plants. (This is where we enter more sensitive ground.) While it is true that plants too are "living" creatures, they do not have the same complex nervous systems that animals like hens, cows, pigs, and goats too. They do not feel pain in the same sense, and they most certainly do not have the same intense drive to avoid being killed that most animals we eat do. Make no mistake, an animal in an abattoir will do everything within its power to continue living. Furthermore, we primarily eat fruits and vegetables which literally exist to be consumed so that the seed of the plant can propagate. Plants are allowed to keep regrowing and not killed in their entirety for food. In any case, eating meat is no answer to stopping plant murder because the animals we eat have been fed vegetarian fodder while alive anyway. The only time this argument holds some water is if one is prepared to go the extreme route where harming any living thing is verboten (and consequently, you live off only what is already dead and so on), but in terms of the extent of violence committed in the two cases, they are really not comparable.
Things I know now to be true:
Animals are more often than not kept in absolutely appalling conditions in slaughter houses. Being aware of this fact is important in our general attempt at being more conscious and deliberate humans.
The concept of "humane meat" is iffy at best. Till about a week ago, this was my go-to consolation. That free range meat and eggs are better because the animals haven't been tormented while alive. While this may be true, the fact remains that these creatures are being reared and killed primarily for our consumption - a consumption that is not entirely critical to our existence.
The pragmatic fact that my turning vegetarian or vegan will not end animal cruelty. Even if I am able to convert a sizable chunk of the population into doing the same, consuming animals and products derived thereof will most likely remain a part of our lives. We can choose to look at this as either doing it anyway because we believe in it, or not bothering because ultimately the animal we would've consumed, someone else will. This interpretation and choice can only be personal.
That there is a limit to how much one can restrict one's negative impact on the world. No matter what lifestyle one chooses, there will be some costs incurred by an uninvolved third party due to the choices we make. We can at best try to minimize the harm we inflict unto others (in all our practices) and remain, true to our name, sapient.
So, which side are you on, anyway?
It is no doubt somewhat hypocritical to be this aware of the wrongs of meat eating and still persist in it. I have been a vegetarian for about two years in my life and will, in all likelihood, return to it in the future. There are also several valid points against vegetarianism that I haven't really covered here (historically meat-eating humans, cultivating corn and soy and producing tofu can be just as damaging to the environment, etc.). But my point is this - if you want to eat something, go ahead and do it. But forcing it on others, or using specious arguments to clear one's conscience, is unfair and lazy. And ideally, the choice of what we ingest should be made on our own.
