Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[bennyboy]

I've given you at least 3 examples. That you might deny what is plain to view does not help your case. I will repeat them now:

1) I could value reduction of suffering as primary concern, but only amongst humans.

2) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard deprivation of meat from those humans who desire it to be a greater suffering then the death of the animals that could have fed the desire. Therefore suffering intrisically increases overall if suffering amongst food animal decreases.

3) I could value reduction of suffering over all as my parimary ethical concern, but regard the dislocation required to implement a move away from meat diet to be the equivalent of greater suffering than death of animals required to maintain status quo. Therefore suffering increases overall in practice if suffering amongst food animal decreases

And this is what it comes down to: how people evaluate and balance different kinds of suffering. Does it even MATTER if an animal suffers, if the suffering leads to improved enjoyment or easier nutrition in humans? As in most cases, it is competing instincts and interests which lead to a dilemma. Most people have a natural tendency toward compassion and sympathy, to a degree-- we have a tendency not to inflict suffering or harm to others, including animals, if there's no good reason to do so. We also have the instinct to eat meat, as evidenced by the fact that the smell of cooking meat smells good, and that many vegetarian foods are deliberately treated as substitues for meat-- veggie burgers, for example, or processed-tofu "meats." So how do we balance these tendencies? Not by calling vegetarians pussies just because their feelings of compassion are stronger than their desire to eat meat. Not by calling meat-eaters monsters, because their desire to eat meat trumps any idea of extending the same protections to animals that they would extend to people.

In the end, I think at least for now, compromise and rational thought on BOTH sides should be the order of the day; we all benefit if we can use logic to assist in our dietary decisions, rather than only the pleasure centers of the brain. I don't think a 350-lb American man really needs to eat that next order of ribs. Save a pig, take a fucking walk, you are not lacking in protein or calories. That unnecessary meal is adding unnecessary misery to the world, because your mind is too weak to overcome your monkey instincts-- you might as well be flinging pooh and masturbating on the bus. On the other hand, vegetarians need to stop being hypocrites. If you're living on a commune, using hand-tools to farm because industrial machinery is causing deaths of voles and birds, then you are probably not reading this. Since you ARE reading this, you haven't taken a perfect stance on this issue, and so you don't have the moral authority to draw everyone else's moral line-in-the-sand.

I ask this: consider that animals suffer, and try to minimize that suffering, where there's no compelling reason not to. We should eat less meat, and be more suspicious and demanding of the meat producers. Just from a health perspective, I think most people would rather eat free-grazing cattle than crippled ones that stand up to the knees in shit all day, or eat the higher-quality meat of natural, free-range chickens than some steroid-pumped DNA-modified freak connected to a machine. But escaping the evils of the mass-production food industry, mathematically, WILL require reducing meat intake a lot.