The Karma of Omnivores
When I was studying for my yoga diploma I ran smack up against a tenant of yogic practice: vegetarianism.
To be honest, my first thought was, "Yes! There's no reason to kill animals to eat." But it's actually much more complex than that.
I can be too flippant, and I've said more than once that many vegetarians view their dietary practice as a kind of short-cut karma or "get out of jail free card" against lessons that need to be learned.
But I do respect the choice not to eat meat. I've actually purposefully and willfully forgone meat for long periods of time (years) for various reasons.
However, never have I done it because I believe it is morally wrong to kill animals for food.
In fact, considering where I live, it is a exercise of privilege to maintain a vegetarian diet. I don't know that I would have come to this conclusion had I not moved to Norway.
Up until the 1970s I don't believe the average Norwegian could never have survived without eating meat. My own mother-in-law recalls the first time she saw a real banana. My husband remembers when he was a child, how they'd all run to the harbour to meet the boat stocked with fruits. Once a year.
Green vegetables were scarce before the implementation of greenhouses. In Norway it was possible to grow nettle, cabbage, carrots, red beets, rhubarb, turnips, lettuce, cauliflower, grains and mushrooms (forbidden in the yoga diet). Though potatoes grow fine here now and are a staple in the Norwegian diet, they aren't indigenous. The country is rich with berries and fruit. Seasonally, of course. Many Norwegians suffered from scurvy and they would swallow a tablespoon of cod liver oil to ward it off. Every Norwegian I know swears by it still.
Fish provide the core of the nutrition for Norwegians. Fresh, dried, salted, sometimes soaked in base until it turns to jelly.
Fish has also been the core of the economic system. Herring schooled into the harbors of the southwest and factories sprung up along the coast. Jobs were created, children clothed and sent to schools. When the herring stopped coming in the 1960s, the towns suffered.
Today we can get any kinds of foods we want. Tofu, soy cheese, miso soup. The imported selection is great. I can eat whatever I want. I am also privileged enough to pay four times as much for the tube of vegetable spread instead of the liver spread. I am probably even privileged enough to find the time to make a cheaper spread myself from the vegetable at the local market. My education is good enough that I can figure out exactly which foods to balance to get the right nutrition. I have the time and resources to research.
I could even ride my bike to the special market to buy organic foods.
What I can't change is the fact that those vegetables were picked, here in Norway, by Polish migrant workers who get a fraction of the pay Norwegians would get.
Every time I pass the fish market on the pier and don't buy fish in favor of a prepacked box of tofu (I have no idea who harvested, processed, packed or shipped the product), I pass up the opportunity to support a local person's livelihood. And of knowing exactly the route of ethical or non-ethical labor practice that I am taking part in.
Having the luxury of not eating meat is dependant upon geography as much as it is dependant upon economy. Just as having the luxury of not having to pick toxic-sprayed vegetables or eat apples infused with gasses that give them a shelf life of 3 months is very much a matter of where you live, which continent, which country, which side of the tracks.
It's none of my business why anyone chooses not to eat meat. I will respect and celebrate that person's choice. However, I will not accept that vegetarianism as a moral imperative. Moral imperatives are not dependent upon the chance of privilege.
It's not a coincidence that historically most yogis were men. They had the luxury of not having to keep enough body fat to menstruate or breastfeed. The had the luxury of being men in that society at that time.
Ethics are far more complicated than "thou shall not kill". When a tenant becomes a moral guideline instead of an ethical behavior, I bow out of the discussion.
And when we start objecting to leather belts and shoes, we need to ask who is stitching the plastic of our synthetic shoes, who is inhaling the chemicals that brew to infuse the rubber lining of our soles with color. We need to ask ourselves what kind of suffering we are taking part in.
We need to ask ourselves these questions anyway.
And then we need to somehow find a way to get on with our lives, doing the best we can.*
Technorati Tags:labor, human rights, grassroots, sustainability, vegetarianism, yoga, food, ethics, morality
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
52 kommentarer:
Very Nice.
You do a great job of addressing the fundamental complexity of issues such as theses.
Welcome to the war!
tp
Very nicely written post.
I would think it quite difficult to refute any of your arguments as they are very coherent and I'd also think most people would totally agree with you.
I wrote a post for this blog war on veganism (I hate ism's!) and I still think that if all your arguments were included I'd still have come to the same conclusion....for me. It is completely accurate that geography, economy, and many other things contribute to what we can and cannot eat.
What we do need to take into consideration is whether to call animals moral agents and then how we go about treating them. If they aren't moral agents then the things I witnessed working in an abattoir are not worth mentioning, if they are, however, we need to decide how to treat them and what moral/ethical rights they possess.
The world is a large place and migrant workers not only pick vegetables. In my country 95% of meat industry workers are migrants on crappy pay on work exchange agreements from Asian and Pacific Island countries. They suffer, as I did, exposure to dangerous chemicals used to steralise the meat and clean the factory, and dangerous working conditions.
I'm not so sure about Norway but in Australia 65% of our country is farm land. 20% of this farm land is for vegetable production and the other 45% is for animal production. Of this 20% for vegetables, 16% is used to grow grain to feed the animals and a further 2% is used to grow grain for export. Of the 2% that is left we feed our country with an abundance of vegetable based food. Eating meat, the way we do, is just plain bad for the environment.
Maybe, as TP mentioned elsewhere, population is the biggest problem. If so it would be far more sustainable to move from Norway where nothing grows to a more hospitable countryside.
The morals mentioned when talking about animal rights are whether animals are a moral agent and not what our personal actions are. If an animal is a moral agent then how can we kill it and if we can, can we then kill other moral agents?
Brilliant! You raised several points I hadn't considered.
Greetings from an American Poet in China...http://www.onemanbandwidth.com/wordpress/?p=753
You got my vote...
Simon, I read your post and the things you described are horrific. I am lucky that the food industry here is as humane as possible. A local ostrich farm was closed last year because of the procedure by which they killed the birds. Nearly all the large chain department stores are held responsible for the factories from which they by clothing, etc. But the suggestion to move an entire population and culture to a more temperate climate is not only utopian thinking, it's illogical and absolutely impossible given todays immigration woes (not to mention cultural stresss points). Who has the right to go down to a peaceful group of nomads in Africa who have been living for decades off cow milk and blood, and not driving cars or burning coal, and tell them to act more responsibly? There are no simple solutions and when simple strategies are implimented there can be terrible results- just look at the "one child" policy in China.
I completely respect your choice and understand that from your experience, it is the right choice for you. However, everyone refusing to eat meat will not solve the world's problems. Not a single one of them. It will not garantee a more ethical world, kinder people or peace. Veganism can increase the amount of chemicals used to create synthetic clothing. By swearing off natural animal hides and all plastics (made from petroleum products and therefore exploiting the resources of dead animals), the current economic system worldwide would shut down. I try to make ethical choices, based on reasoning in each situation, not based on any dogma. I believe that choosing behavoir based on a utopic society that doesn't exist is a dogmatic response to a complex problem.
With much respect, Simon-
r. (and thanks for helping me think!)
Well you sure brought things back to reality, morality depends on context, just like every other scientific principle.
I have not come across a tenet of yoga that asserts vegetarianism, but I can see why some might come to it. yoga=india=hindu=veggie?
but hindus aren't required to practice yoga, and practicing yoga does not make you a hindu. ;o)
There are good arguments on both sides - I'm happy I'm not an absolutist. The answer for me would be: greater and progressive improvements in farming and animal welfare, and sustainability - and personal consumption control within a balanced diet. Then I hope everyone will better live how they choose, free from moralising and criticism.
It depends on how one interprets the Veda. One of the eight branches of Yoga is Karma yoga which does include the no-harm idea, most often interpreted as "don't kill anything". I'm not refering to the yoga experience that is exclusively the practice of asana (1 of 8 branches of yoga) for "buns of steel" results.
The key element to the sattvic diet is vegetarianism. Flesh food (meat, fish and poultry) increases the animal frequency in the body and it brings more animal-like tendencies into operation such as the vibrations of anger, lust, fear and murderous impulses. (scroll down 1/4).
Hello Ren-Kat
Thank you for that smashing comment on my blog.
"My own mother-in-law recalls the first time she saw a real banana. My husband remembers when he was a child, how they'd all run to the harbour to meet the boat stocked with fruits. Once a year."
(These had to be my favourite lines. They were deeply creative & reflective and also showed your talent.)
By the way, I have voted for you.
cheers
Yoga that doesn't assert vegetarianism? That's one I've not heard of.
Spending four out of every 12 months in India and being fluent in Sanskrit, Hindi, and Bangla I can assure you that Yoga and vegetarianism go hand in hand.
The most relevant form of yoga today is Bhakti Yoga. Why? Well here's a verse from the Bhagavat Purana, 4.31.12:
kim va yogena sankhyena
nysa-svadhyayayor api
kim va sreyobhir anyais ca
na yatratma-prado harih
This basically says you won't get full satisfaction - na yatratma-prado - from mystic yoga, taking sanyasa, or analytic vedic study - yogena sankhyena nysa-svadhyayayor - it even says there is no use for auspicious activity - kim va sreyobhir
All because God - harih - is not their target. What yoga has god as it's target? Bhakti yoga.
How is this so? Lets look now at the Bhagavad Gita, 18.55:
bhaktya mam abhijanati
yavan yas casmi tattvah
tato mam tattvato jnatva
visate tad-anantaram
This verse basically says that the truth is that to understand the truth, or god, - mam tattvatah - and to enter into heaven -visate tat-anantaram - one must be fully counscious of god - abhijanati yavanand - to do this one must be a bhakti yogi - bhaktya mam -.
Now how does this relate to vegetarianism? Well to be a bhakti yogi you serve god, thats what bhakti means - devotion -. Now to serve god we need to know what god desires and to do that we turn to his word or the Bhagavad Gita - song of god - and what does it say god wants? In the Bhagavad Gita 9.26 it says:
patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah
This verse is saying god wants vegetables - patram - flowers - puspam - fruit - phalam - and water - toyam - and god will only accept such things - asnami - if offered by a bhakti yogi - bhakty-upahrtam - in pure consciousness -prayatatmanah-
I hope this is of some help.
yes, I think I realised that after I posted. I assumed you meant the asanas commonly practiced in the west.
thanks for the link. It's fascinating to read about other beliefs. :o)
I'm sorry of some of the translitteration of the last post is a little out. I can't post in devanagari 'cause no one's computer will have the fonts installed. Most probably won't understand it any way. I've tried to be as accurate as I can be so if sounded out the words will sound the same.
hi simon, you just pipped me. hope my explanation serves to respond to your comment as well and we've both learned something new today. the western yoga experience is fairly secular - where do you spend the other 8 months! :o/
you're right about the language but at least it covered up any typos. ;o)
THANK YOU Susan, and Susan!
This is a long overdue analysis! You’ve illustrated how we justify almost any action if it suits our purpose. Tackling with great distinction the many complexities of ethics My votes in!
Hi... My parents forced us into a vegetarian diet when I was in my teens. --I was so hungry that I would boil an egg at night when they were asleep so that I could stave off the hunger pains.
I went onto a meat diet (with vegetables etc of course) when I left home. I found that I had problems with fruits except berries. Now that I have Wegener's with kidney problems, I am back to a low protein diet. I hate it. Oh yea, and I am not allowed to eat tofu either. :-)
One thing many vegetarians don't realize is that protein is an important nutrient for children. The best protein comes from meat. Protein is essential in the early years (0-6) because it helps the brain grow dendrites on the neurons... these dendrites determine how smart your child (or you) become. Another note...
I certainly agree with you - food choice vegan, vegitarian etc. is a function of personal philosophy, geography and economics. As you saw I was also participating in the discussion simon had on his blog on a similar topic.
I just can't see the support for food choice as morality - it just can't hold water.
I certainly can appreciate all the reasons why someone would choose this, but making it moral also seems to imply prosthelytizing, which I can't stand either.
Unfortunately I can't eat fish becaus I hate the taste, but I do take fish oil supplements from your fine Norwegian fish.
I'm looking forward to reading more posts.
I really enjoyed reading your words, and I voted for you too. i liked the part when you comment on supporting local business instead of purchasing the product supplied by who knows. Really well written, and thank you for dropping by my blog, I hope the thought of a brisk walk on the beach in the winter warms you a little.
Rachel
I like what you said but the point you may be missing is that we are evolving into a world where it will no longer be necessary for anyone to eat meat. Then the morality of the issue becomes more primary.
I have been a vegetarian for 14 years. It took awhile before animal flesh became as repulsive as human flesh would be to meat eaters, but it does happen naturally which leads me to the conclusion that vegetarianism can be a goal that a world we slowly approach as able.
Jane, you are assuming that I agree that it is a matter of "morality"- I made it clear that I wouldn't address morality, only ethics. I also pointed out quite specifically in the essay and in comments here how it is absolutely necessary in this world for the majority of the population to continue to eat meat. Therefore it cannot be a moral issue. Morality as anyone defines it would be an absolute. Unless you believe that self-destruction is a moral choice, vegetarianism can not be a moral issue- only a matter of ethics.- by the way- "what you may be missing" implies that you know an absolute truth I don't. I don't think we are going to agree there.
Sorry, can't stop myself. Anorexia also "happens naturally" when people habitualize a pattern of eating. That is not an indication of a moral truth, much less an ethical imperative.
On supporting local food: I have to ask if you support the Norwegian whaling industry. I mean, personally I would not yet I don't subscribe to the idea of animals being moral agents - so I say what's my problem? I guess it's a human issue throughout, one of compassion for animals and a sense of conservation.
I've been giving thought to the crux of your argument and I think there's something awry and I think Jane Lake has touched on it here. I'm not satisfied with the philosophy that the future is dictated by the past. It doesn't matter what wasn't available 35 years ago or we might as well be thinking about eating roots and throwing spears at our food. We have proved to be more innovative than that.
that's not to say it would change in any one's lifetime but if we really wanted to, we could change our dietary culture quite radically.
(Sorry, I had so many typos I had to try again:)
Jane talks of Morals. I refuse to talk about morality- again, if anything ever WAS dependent upon privilege, it can't be a moral issue.
And I seriously do not believe that a very large percentage of the world can now go without meat. I was in Kyrgyzstan a week and the people could NOT understand the concept of my not eating meat. Would you call that a moral weakness? The "ignorant" are doomed to acting immorally?
I find this at odds with my concept and understanding of morality.
I think quite often this discussion focuses on the industrialized world only, and then my point regarding the absurdity of discussing morality comes again into the picture. Lets keep to ethics.
Then we get to the part of my argument that Jane completely dismissed- this is the crux of my argument: the alternatives to meat-based products available to the masses are often chemical-based and the labour practices around many of these products unquestionably unethical.
Why is it automatically a better choice for me to take part in a system that spares the life of a cow but helps lead to cancer in a woman in China? I do not believe it is.
These are serious questions that many dogmatic vegitarians avoid by turning the argument in a different direction and ignoring the larger communities in favor of "individual responsibility"- fine when the individual lives in a part of the world that allows their lifestyle- But are the rest of the people doomed to act "immorally"?
Whaling is a very large issue that can hardly be flung into this debate- this is about the ethics of vegetarianism. I could write an entire post easily on whaling alone. (Then there are also issues of the halal method of butchering animals.) Saying it's not always unethical to eat meat doesn't mean that I'm advocating poaching gorrillas. Taking a stand does not mean advocating the extreme practice of anything. - If we go there, I could ask morally superior vegetarians how all this food be distributed to the utopian veggie society without fossel fuels? How will the fields be irrigated in Africa? How will be keep the animal populations in balance now that the natural predators are gone and the imbalance has been created? How will animals and men compete for limited resources? I never hear answers to this- not on a large scale (that is outside a nice litte community on fertile land). It is elitist thinking.
We shouldn't base our choices on truths of the past perhaps (although you may want to look at how these ideas play into the rights of Native Americans and Sami people of Finland), but neither is it realistic to base our actions today on an imaginary future. AGAIN- the crux of my argument is that foregoing animal meat can actually lead to the greater suffering of human beings. It is not automatically a "good" thing. Being a vegetarian does not allow you to kick back and think you're doing the best for Gaia.
you got my vote!
well put and convincing argument about the luxury of choice.
Great entry. Well thought out and thorough. You bring up the point about vegetarianism being a choice for those of privilege - I never thought of it that way, so thank you for giving me something new to think about :)
As for the killing of animals as food for humans being moral or ethical - To be honest I think there are a lot more urgent matters out there than sparing the life of a cow or chicken. I don't think it's acceptable to mistreat animals, to pump them full of hormones to yield more meat ... but I don't have a problem with killing them so I can feed my family. Instead, I have a problem with corporations charging obscene prices for AIDS drugs so they may profit on whether people live or die. I have a problem with people going without running water (and it happens in the U.S, too) because they have no money. I have a problem with the fact that there are people in the U.S. right now, the richest country in the world (at least for now) who don't have a bed to sleep in tonight when the temperature drops to 30 degrees.
Great, thought-provoking essay ren.kat. And thanks for visiting me :) I hope you keep coming back.
A very interesting post. You brought up some points that I rarely hear discussed in the "meat or no meat" conversations out there.
I'll vote for you!
Thanks Tracie and Amanda! - Linus, I'm not trying to say don't bother to make an effort to do the right thing when it comes to animals, but that "doing the right thing" may not have the simple consequences a lot of vegetarians believe will make the world a more humane place. But, boy do I hear you about other issues out there! And the fact that people in America freeze to death every year, or that overweight children are malnurished while the rest of society gets all Calvinistic and smug about the "land of plenty" and open their pockets in public when show pictures of children in Ethiopia. Guess it's sexier to pretend you're jet-setting with Angela Jolie than to get on the street and hand out blankets. Oops- where am I going with this? Thats another war altogether, isn't it?
As you may have noticed, in my post above I outlined some verses from the Veda's of India about vegetarianism. It is commonly accepted that the Bhagavad Gita was compiled some 2000-5000 years ago. Where these vegetarians priviledged people? I also mentioned that I spend time in India. Most of the people I live with live in small villages with no running water, little to no electricity, and many other factors that would put them into the dominant ideological class of disadvantaged. Most of these people are pure vegetarian because of their faith and because of necessity. It is far cheaper, both financially and ecologically, to be vegetarian.
No one is advocating the use of chemically enhanced foods and these people I speak of don't even have access to it. If vegetarianism arose in one of the most disadvantaged countries in the world why should we think of it as being dependant on first world ideology?
I've already addressed these questions. Yes- yogis were men. The greater their status as yogis, the less time spent doing other work- i.e. they did not have to rear children and were fortunate to live in a temperate climate. I am puzzled by your use the term "pure" here in connection with a group of people's lack of modern conveniences- need is not proof of ethical behavoir (remember I am not going to discuss morality). Why bring it into the discussion? AND I have NEVER advocated first world ideology used anywhere! That is insulting. (Are you suggesting we apply third world ideology to the industrialized world? Are you aware of the things that are happening in Nagaland, for example?) What works in a village of 60 won't work in a city of 6 million. Adopting the practices and hoping the reality goes away is no solution. India's life expectancy is 58.6 years. Infant mortality is 78,4 per 1000 (Norway's is respectively, 77.4 and 6.3 per 1000). I do live in first world realities. I realisitically will not give up medical care for my child to romanticize rural Indian lifestyles. You have address none of my points about why the whole world cannot resort to vegetarianism without relying on other, harmful processes.
by the way- forgot to say that I do not, or at least try very hard not to make my ethical decisions based on any ideology. If one subscribes to any ideology, then all debate is really just veiled proselytizing. (I don't think you're doing that, by the way.)
Here you are assuming that the veda's were 'written' by men. That is ideological. Yogis weren't only men and I hope with your diploma of yoga you will get an oportunity to learn some sanskrit and read for your self with out the ideology of the translator being present. Pure is not my term, it is the term that is used in India for vegetarians who eat only a vegan diet plus milk products. In the western world we say lacto-vegetarian. It has nothing to do with lack of modernity at all. While I did mention that I spend time in villages I do spend time in the cities as well (in India) and most of the 'Hindu" population there are veg too. And whats this about 'western' medical care? Do you not think that India has 'western' health care? It is a huge tourist industry to go there for the cheaper health care. Isn't 'western' health care an ideology as well as opposed to, what I'm assuming your refering to, ayurveda? And Nagaland. Yeah, I've been there. I have friends who live there and who now live elsewhere but originate from there. What does this have to do with whether killing an animal with the only purpose being your own convienince as being right or wrong?
I was taught that yogis were primarily men. Hence the "exceptions" made when women are practicing various rituals. When referring to healthy care- I'm not passing on ideological ideas- I'm refering to a huge discrepancy in infant mortality rates. Saying that if you hold up the Indian village as a model of ethical and ideal practice, I reject that model on the basis of my compassion for fellow human beings. I bring up Nagaland, because violent separatists there support my assertion that vegetarianism doesnn't promote or evidence compassionate as a consequence of vegetarian diet.
By the way, Simon- I never have figured out how to respectfully talk about oral traditions of information- to say men "made up" the vedas hardly sounds respectful. ? and tips?
I do believe that choices have to be based in reality. I don't believe in hunting for sport, but I do believe it's part of the natural process for humans to be omnivores.
That aside, your argument is very powerful. We'd all like to have the luxury of eating only the very best foods, of having only the healthiest of diets, but reality has a way of butting in and giving its own two cents.
Just as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every choice there is a consequence.
I like how you think, and I like the way you present your ideas. Vote cast!
Interesting post. It made me consider some issues I had never thought about before. I suppose the crux of the argument is absolutism vs. relativism. I've never been much of an absolutist, always preferring a subjective approach.
I think I agree with most of what you have to say about this issue. It would be a better world if humans didn't have to harm other animals to survive, but people will always come first for me. So, until we invent replicators, we will still be dependent on killing to survive. I probably should take more care myself given my status of "privilege". I usually don't think about myself that way, but the things you said reminded me how fortunate I am.
By the way, most of the vegetarians that I know have openly disclaimed that they only do so because they dislike meat. Further disclaimer: I am not a vegetarian.
Thanks, Matt, for commenting. I alwasy thought that not being an absolutist was an objective, reasonable approach: i.e. to apply reason to each situation. But I'm not sure what those terms "really" mean (absolutist vs. relativist). Relativism has got a bad rep. I think. Thanks again!
Thanks for the discussion re.kat. Sanyasis may have been primarily men, however, the distinction we make between man and woman in western thought was not present at all in the vedas. There is some difference between man and woman but the vedas classify humans into more than 200 different species of which only the upper species could attain the benifits of sanyasa in this life. Quite how we clasify animals as different and denying them the liberties that we assign to humans. I don't want to go on too much in this comment area but I'm just not to sure how those infant mortality rates are gathered? In most places in the world the moment when life begins is calculated differently so to effectively say that infant mortality rates are evidence we first need to decide when life begins so we can know when it ends. I personally believe that abortion should be included in these figures and I'm sure if it was the infant mortality rates in 'western' countries would increase dramatically.
And to that other question, the origin of the Vedas. Well, no one looking at them scientifically has been able to give an accurate date. It is generally accepted that the current versions were compiled by a saint called kalidasa in south India around 2000-3000 years ago. Of course there are older texts etc. still around dating back some 7000 years but these are fragmentary. The vedas were origanily an oral tradition and western science does not give much heed to oral traditions; they need physical evidence. When I speak on the origin of the vedas I give the version present in the vedas. Veda (knowledge) comes from Vyasadeva (god) and was compiled by Ganesha.
hello war mate!
Nice of you to adress the issue of vegan'ism. Actually it would be nice to say that everything is up to a persons perception but of course religion played a major part. Until we realize we are killing animals with souls then there is not real chance of feeling guilty and stop eating animals. But meat do contain variuous chemicals that are important to humans. I think a balanced diet of everything is still the best alternative. We are not executing mass extinction but are just being part of the food chain. Maybe reducing our intake of non-veg's could enable us to balance our diet more.
Thanx for the link!
well, I do think if half the debate is about yoga you could have offered a simple yes or no answer to the whaling question - I mean, you brought the subject of supporting local traditions and businesses. ;o) I think your view on whaling is relevant, I suspect it is the chink in your ethical argument. You need to defend it but can't.
There are a lot of red herrings at the moment (no pun intended).
The crux, surely, is whether you view animals should not be eaten when there exists another choice (re: ''doing the best we can'').
The ''vegetarians'' are stating it is unethical to eat meat when there is a choice of not doing so.
the situation other people find themselves in is not mitigating in your case: it is your choice. ethics aren't universal.
agree with the most, you got my vote and good results... at war
by the way thanx for the comment about the poem, that is the line i identify myself with more, too
Simon,
I hear you, but believe that when they wrote of "humans" in most texts ever and anywhere in the world, history shows humans meant a select group of men. I don't know enough about the Vedas to argue so will take your word for it. However, I don't think that your opinion regarding whether aborted fetuses should be counted in infant mortality rates is relevant to this discussion. Nor would it change the number of full term babies who die in India within the first two years compared to the full term babies who die in Norway within the first two years. To throw in an emotional issue like this deflects a logical discussion and puts us onto something else (interesting discussion, true- but not the same topic). I think that scientists are beginning to give more credit to oral traditions- slowly, but surely. I admire what you are doing- it's not for me, but I admire it.
Ghost Particle,
Well, when we start talking about "souls" we are talking about faith. I have great respect for faith and have my own, too, that is the basis for many of the choices I make. But this is a philosophy war- it's about reasoning. Faith isn't reason and shouldn't be and isn't of any less value for that reason (I think). "Believe what I believe because we FEEL. . . " isn't about being reasonable unless "believing" is a reasonble thing to do because you'd be killed otherwise or something like that. Then the choice is reasonable, but the argument still is not about reason.
Ian- no the debate isn't about yoga- or at least the original post wasn't. It was 1: vegetarians are not more moral than omnivores and 2: vegetarians are not necessarily making more ethical choices by not eating animals.
I didn't say vegetarians were unethical, immoral, amoral or anything else. Most vegetarians seem to me to make their decisions based on emotion. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that there's no logical proof of their superiority, ethically. (Perhaps morally if you have the same belief system, but that's not philosophy, that's theology.)
Whaling? I'm going to write a post on it this week and then I'll email you a copy :-) I'm not at all sure what you think I need to defend or why. I am not the one throwing out red herrings. See above in this comment the two points of my argument. There is no more to my argument. No one has shown a phallacy in my logic regarding these two statements. (Neither of them touches remotely on abortion ;-).) You say the crux of my argument is whether it is ethical to eat meat when there are other choices. I say yes, because there are many situations for most people on earth actually when the other choice involves unethical labor practices and potential damage to the environment by way of chemicals or other polutants due to storage, processing, transportation, irrigation etc.
p.s. a hint about my whaling views- I am not holding myself up as an ethical role-model, I am also not saying that I don't make a lot of my choices based on belief and emotion rather than reason- (there are times when I think it's "moral" but not something that one can prove through reasoning and therefore an "ethical" constraint.)I'm not arguing my life-views here, I'm playing with logic and enjoying hearing other people's views and connections.
Sorry if the comment about abortion seemed emotive, it wasn't intended to. I agree that it won't change the number of full term children who die, I was just stating that to have accurate infant mortality figures we need to know when life starts. Does life begin when the childs head emerges or when it's feet emerge? What then of breach babies? Is it when the entire baby has emerged? If abortion is not to be included in infant mortality figures as it is not killing a life is terminating a baby when it's half way born not to be included in infant mortality figures? I don't mean to get emotive here and I'm trying to keep this as logical as possible. To talk about the number of deaths in a society we need to know when life starts. Is it more ethical to terminate a child at 13 weeks than it is when it is in the process of being born or five minutes after it is born? Why?
We can debate the ideas of the creation of the third world and the maintanance of the third world and it's conditions as a necessary condition of western ideology, particularly capatalism, but we'd be going way off topic. I wrote an essay, to long to post, for an Asian Studies course exploring just these issues. It is interesting to think though that our actions and ideas in the first world are creating those conditions, such as higher infant mortality in the third world, as necessary to our continued ideological existence.
Once again I'm sorry if you thought abortion was emotive. To me killing a human, no matter how young, and killing an animal are the same.
Another quick comment.
After reading ghost particle's comment about not commiting mass extinction I thought I'd have to mention that we are not far off from it. I'll use the cow as an example here as it's the animal I have most experience with. When most people think of a cow they just see the same creature and not a number of species like they would in say dogs for example. Most cows today are hybrids created to produce more milk or fattier, tastier meat. What many people fail to realise is that since this hybridisation began over 300 specied of cows no longer exist. They are now extinct, gone forever. We can speak of saving a whale species, the humpback for example, because we recognise it as something unique but not the cow. We look at a cow and say what's wrong with what we are doing? There's plenty of cows in the world. Can I say lets kill all the humpback whales becuase there's plenty of other species out there? Next time you go to eat that steak or beef burger take a moment to remember those more than three hundred species that have become extinct so you can have a more juicier flavour.
78 vs. 6 - no matter where you begin counting it's not going to even out those number.
Interesting thing about cows, Simon, I didn't know that. But your arguments would be more convincing if they weren't riddled with emotive hyperbole and accusations. This is about being rational, yes?
okay, I accept you're playing devil's advocate and your argument may or may not reflect your own life choices.
still, the crux of the argument seems grounded on what happens elsewhere and any flaws in the alternative. I can't accept that argument as valid in this debate: isn't it the same kind of logic as saying execution of criminals is wrong but don't abolish it because conditions in the prison are too terrible?
there are flaws with non-animal food production but eating meat won't alter this. that's why I suggested it is a specious point.
on a pedantic, technical point - domestic dogs are all of the same species, yet many 'breeds'. As they are all of man's creation, like the cows, I wonder if they is much merit in conservation of any one breed for the sake of sentimentality. It's not like an indiginous animal which in some unknown way may hold the balance of nature in its existence.
Simon- if you're still reading- I apologize, looking at the comment I left yesterday it sounds rather snide. Not my intention. I'll leave it in the interest of blogging ethics, but please know it wasn't meant the way it sounds.
Ian- I don't get what you're saying. I am not arguing about "elsewhere"- I am saying that if it is relative to time or place it can't be a moral imperitive to avoid meat. 2. that for most people just choosing not to eat meat is not an environmentally friendlier choice, nor a more humane choice. If you are lucky to live in a place where it is an opion with good repurcussions- good on you- but that doesn't make you a better person. Now I'm beginning to repeat myself. So I'm going to stop. When discussing a point, pulling up apparently similar logical sequences is rarely accurate. This becomes a ridiculous argument- you could just as well say "well, why not just eat people, then"- while Simon probably feels this way, and I understand that- I don't- that's a matter of faith and morality which again doesn't belong in a debate about the moral superiority of vegetarians.
Now you guys have me all confused about cows. :-)
Simon- saw a book today called "The Bloodless Revolution" - I think it's new. I would have bought it but I had all the carry-on lugage I could squeeze into the little bag. I think you'd be interested. . .
No need to apologise, I took no offence. I do use a bit of coloquial language while blogging 'cause it is just a casual engagement. Believe me, I'd never use this sort of language for my Uni papers! Sorry if it offended.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issues we've been discussing but I would like to clear things up a little 'cause they have gotten a bit off track. I don't argue that vegans are morally superior, full stop. Also I draw my conclusions from the belief that animals have rights and we are abusing those rights by farming them and killing them etc. so I will still have to disagree that only some animals have rights while those in countries, such as the netherlands and other cooler climate countries, do not. To me animal rights are universal.
Bloodless Revolution, I've read it and I would have to say that it wasn't that great. Just repeated the same old arguments. Sorry. If anyone is interested in ethics, particularly in relation to animals, look up Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University. He has published quite alot on this issue including a new book called 'the ethics of what we eat: why our food choices matter'. Great read. Also, if you have access to online databases such as proquest there is heaps available to read. I've just pulled a great paper off from there by Ramon Das called 'virtue ethics and right action' published in the Australisian Journal of Philosophy. Proquest is such a great resource.
I recently came across the term, "hyperempathic". Naively, I considered this to be a pathological symptom, a state of affairs to be treated, to prevent excessive bleeding hearts making a mess of pavements (sidewalks) and other public places. I assumed, it referred to inappropriate and excessive emotional responses to events in the world. How wrong was I! To be labelled as hyperempathic, it seems, is a badge of honour; a signifier of "goodness". And would you believe we now have Hyperempathic Politics! Is there no limit to human ingenuity when it comes to self-differentiation? I suspect there will be more than a few vegetarians (probably vegans for the extra status conferred) amongst this new moral and ethical aristocracy. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned empathy?
I wasn't going to vote for you. Nothing personal, it's just an old male giffer thing - being awkward, cantankerous, and just downright rude goes with the territory (I think we have our own Guild complete with a manual you know); and of course, we're unafraid to wear pink. Anyway, on reflection, I changed my mind. As all bloggers, whether modest or great, are chronically narcissistic, I understand how much this means to you (this is standard empathy, not the other kind!). Good luck.
Narcissistic? Yes. Also pathologically needy for the approval of strangers, sometimes referred to as the "You like me, You really like me" syndrome.
If it makes you feel better, I've no shot at winning the little button.
Post a Comment