Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or to anyone else-that, I think, is the whole of morality. –Chamfort
It would be hypocritical for me to say that one shouldn’t eat meat. I’ve eaten it for eighteen years, acknowledging but brushing past the way it is obtained in the United States. I believe that individual ignorance, selfishness, laziness, and indifference are the moral problems rather than meat consumption or even the processes used to obtain such meat in the U.S. Until I was “forced” to deeply research the topic, I did not have a personal active opinion. And now after reading, considering my own habits and morals (which are in the process of being formed each time I learn something new), I have decided to stop eating meat. Why? Because I can.
Should one base his or her actions based solely upon ability? No. If the entire population of the United States stopped consuming meat from animals, there would of course be problems. The animals that were bread for the sole purpose of consumption would most likely not have the traits needed to survive in the wild. If they did, or if humans found a way to keep them alive, overpopulation could occur, although it is unlikely since forced breeding wouldn’t be taking place to produce meat products. According to Joy Williams, (“The Inhumanity of the Animal People,” Harper’s, August 1997P) “On an average day in America, 130000 cattle, 7000 calves, 360000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are killed” to feed Americans. The ways slaughter houses and other industries kill these animals are inhumane and should be looked upon as immoral in a country that frowns upon the killing of innocents. Although there are many people who can survive on a diet without meat, there are those who cannot. The scale upon which the meat industry influences the average citizen of the United States is too grand and too easily accessible. With convenient supply, many Americans don’t think twice about what has happened to the animals they turn into Christmas dinners, and if they do, the thought is fleeting. As an individual, I feel it is my moral responsibility to not support the meat industry and therefore cruelty to animals by not eating meat. If one chooses to consume it, I do not deny them that right if they are conscious about where it comes from and how it is obtained. It would be virtually impossible to turn an entire planet vegetarian, so as long as individuals are informed, I believe that the choice is theirs. Moral wrongness in meat consumption lies not in the consumption itself but rather in an individual’s choice to regard animals lives as equal to or subpar from human’s.
10 comments:
I don't think I have ever heard of the uncruel slaughtering of an animal for food. The consumption of meat, fish, and poultry is as fundamental in humankind as it is in the animal kingdom. I have not seen either a merciful slaughtering of an impala by a lion or the considerate digestion of an insect by a fowl. Perhaps it is all in perception. Certainly the eligibility of other food sources does not negate the morality of meat. That would be like saying that because we now have the ability to produce lint free socks, it is no longer ethical to use socks that are not lint free. (The morality of which does not align with that of most peoples world view.) If the food industry can lower the amount of pain an animal goes through during slaughtering, lets do it. But to condemn a historic food source out of what some think of as a fleeting arrow of morality (myself included), is simply, well, bullish and one-sided. Besides, aren't there bigger fish to fry? 45 million people have been determined unfit to live by Americans since the introduction of the Roe v Wade verdict. Maybe the cruelty resides in the mere focus on animals; as mass amounts of abortion$ occur.(no typo) Great blog, makes me think.
Ps.
Why do you insist on proclaiming the relative? If we all walked around with the "you do what you do, and I do what I do" mentality, we would have chaotic, unproductive, and unsafe culture. The idea that one must care for the welfare of their neighbor would go out the window, after all, you do whatever floats your boat. Don't be afraid of dropping the hammer of your beleifs even if it might offend. I like your meekness, really. But why choose lean on the relative?
Contrary to SMH's suggestion, there's no greater tofu to steam than the shedding of conventional blinkers so that we might consistently -- and finally -- recognize our most basic moral obligations to nonhuman and human others.
Prof., if the moral standard that your speaking of is not present in nature, how then can it be hoisted on humans as if it always should've been? Truthfully, how large is your moral obligation to that protozoa in your hot tub, or that virus you just offed with that dose of antibiotics? Isn't it easier to beleive in a creator who made humans in His image? Aren't we the grandest of all of creation?
SMF-Thank you for your comments. Perhaps it is all just in perception (which might be the relative side of your mind). "Can" does not imply "ought". I agree with that and your sock analagy. Stopping meat consumption completely is not only impossible but illogical (concerning economy, among other things). I am simply suggesting that as one moral question, no matter how fleeting that arrow is, animal cruelty is something humans should at the very least be informed about and therefore capable of making his or her own decisions and conclusions about the process and their actions regarding it.
As for what you describe as my radically relative worldview, I guess I'd have to respond relatively as well: I do not think that we should, as individuals, do necessarily "whatever floats our boats" and I agree that the world would be chaos with that view. But I still stand behind my declaration that IF one's beliefs are supported morally, safely, and respectfully, justifying them is not necessary. That's not to say that exploring and growing in one's faith or lifestyle is futile; but rather attempting to change someone else's views are without having them experience something more than what they know is inane.
Professor- Perhaps what you refer to as our "most basic moral obligations to nonhuman and human others" is the obligation to determine such responsibilities within our time on earth.
"Prof., if the moral standard that your speaking of is not present in nature, how then can it be hoisted on humans as if it always should've been?"
Though not deducible from nature alone, those standards are ingredient within and a consequence of our understanding of both morality and nature.
"Truthfully, how large is your moral obligation to that protozoa in your hot tub, or that virus you just offed with that dose of antibiotics?"
Very small indeed! Hence, my preferred criterion of basic and direct moral significance is self-conscious awareness.
"Isn't it easier to beleive in a creator who made humans in His image? Aren't we the grandest of all of creation?"
Not in my view.
"Professor- Perhaps what you refer to as our "most basic moral obligations to nonhuman and human others" is the obligation to determine such responsibilities within our time on earth."
I think that's literally all we can do.
Prof., Terribly bleek your outlook is. So let me understand, you don't have a moral obligation to a single celled organism because you can't see it? I can't see the buffalo in kansas, so in your view, does my moral obligation go out the window when I eat a buffalo burger? Your criteria for this view is flawed beyond reason. I give you credit in that at least you have made an effort to rationalize this bizzare ideal. Excuse the tangent, how do you account for the origination of life? It seems to me that your reaching in your views, my guess is that you are doing so to rationalize and justify your behaviors and other related issues, just like many other people who hold to such outlandish ideas. BTW Where does your morality come from?
SMH: That would indeed be an absurd position! My preferred criterion of moral considerability -- the threshold some organism must meet in order to be fully and directly morally considerable -- is that it is, as best we can tell, self-consciously aware.
Post a Comment