There's an interesting debate raging in this thread between the veg*ns and the meat-eaters. I find it interesting, because on the one hand, there are veg*ns claiming that veg*ns don't prosletyze, despite the presence of people doing just that upthread. On the other hand, what the veg*ns are talking about is a very real phenomenon: meat-eaters who are angry at you for not eating meat.
Most vegetarians and vegans do not, in fact, prosletyze. While I do explain, when asked, my decision to only eat humanely raised meat, I've never finished up with " . . . and that's why you should too, you cruel, thoughtless bastard." Nonetheless, many people react as if I'd tacked on this last phrase, and spit. What the hell is wrong with me? Don't I understand that meat tastes good? That certified humane meat is expensive? That animals would do the same, and worse, to each other . . . etc. Yes, yes, thank you Dr. Insight, I have in fact heard each and every one of these devastating arguments at least a hundred times.
Those who, like me, have made ethical choices about our diets that we haven't asked anyone else to emulate, find the aggressiveness of these encounters puzzling; most of us have come to the conclusion that it is a psychological defense mechanism employed by people who think that we're right, but don't want to make the modest hedonic sacrifice necessary to comply with this ethical position. So you're not only not persuading us to change our ways; you're reinforcing our belief in the correctness of our choice.
To be sure, in some cases I'm just undoubtedly standing in for the annoying minority of vegetarians who have rudely and repeatedly pressed their case. Not that this is any more enjoyable for me. Please, if you would, go find the crushing boor who lectured you on your diet and prosecute your case with him. I'm perfectly willing to discuss why I do what I do, if you're interested, but while I'm happy to have converts, I'm not interested in recruiting them at the point of a verbal sword.
Meanwhile, vegetarians who feel that they must lecture the Great Unwashed: how many people have you converted? Count them up, right now. The answer would be "none", wouldn't it? Yes, that's right, the people you're hectoring are about as likely to come into the fold through your lectures as you are to be reborn in Christ through the efforts of that guy shouting about the Whore of Babylon on the 42nd Street subway steps. Just as he makes Christianity less attractive through his histrionics, you are, by convincing potential converts that vegetarians are a bunch of humorless jerks who spend most of their time lecturing hapless diners, probably driving people away. Plus, you're not only annoying them; you're annoying me by proxy. Please stop.
If you want people to become vegetarians, show them that it's not so bad to be a vegetarian. Feed them good vegetarian food. Have fun vegetarian parties. Live to be 100. It really is possible to lead a rich, satisfying meat-free life. But you wouldn't know it from the free-lance preachers in the hemp shoes.
The funniest one I remember hearing is that "eating meat makes perspiration smell bad."
Virtually guaranteed to start a silly discussion.
Meanwhile, vegetarians who feel that they must lecture the Great Unwashed: how many people have you converted? Count them up, right now. The answer would be "none", wouldn't it?
No, the answer would be "We don't know." Shame is a powerful motivator, but it is rarely manifest in overnight conversions. Major social reforms take time. Public protests and expressions of moral outrage have been an important component of all such movements. In the movement to improve our treatment of animals, both quiet, reserved organizations like the Humane Society and loud, aggressive ones like Peta have an important role to play.
I was a vegetarian for 17 years (I was trying to get my cholesterol down, but it didn't work) and people often treated me like I was some kind of priest. Apologizing to me for eating meat in my presence and bringing weird snacks over when I had parties. I always wanted to say, "You don't have to bring organic, grass-fed popcorn, I love Doritos!"
Now that I eat meat again many of my friends and relatives have expressed relief; they no longer have to worry about my food choices when I visit them.
Is the * in veg*n like the - in G-d? Or is it a wildcard character (a / etaria)?
You may be right that veg'ns don't overtly proseletyze (that was, after all, a joke, surprised you got so riled up about it). They are just passive-aggressive about it. Of course not all are like that. But I must say that during a lunch this summer with a vegan, she did not stop ranting about how inhumane it was to have the suckling pig on the menu. Having listened for ten minutes to this prosel... err talk, I, of course, proceeded to get the skewered piglet just to spite her. After all, it was already dead, and it had the potential to really tasty (which it was).
Moral vegans choose not to eat for ethical reasons. As a result, they believe that those who do eat meat are not ethical people. I'd be really surprised if you didn't think those views seeped through once in a while, like any other moral high-equestrianism, which in turn may certainly evoke feelings of agitation in the meat eater.
There is actually a study done on the difference between moral and health vegetarians by Paul Rozin: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=2&sq=morality%20instinct&scp=1
Very well said. Rarely have I ever seen a vegan NOT berate someone eating a dish he or she does not care for. Dr. Strangeplant has it right - order the veal ASAP. There isn't much difference between PITA and PETA.
I think it's actually somewhat easy to explain. You, qua vegan, have moralized something that meat-eaters do not moralize. Whether or not you want to proselytize, your view point involves an implicit view that what they're doing is suspect. Now, adults (like you) are capable of living with that fact. Those meat-eaters who are dicks about it don't. The aggressively proselytizing vegans, despite not completely being dicks about it, also don't know how to live with it.
Except for perhaps religious purity codes, such as eating kosher, etc, that's how morality works--there's something that rings false about "this is what I feel morally obliged to do, but I really hold no opinion about what you do."
I think once you claim to hold some belief as any kind of value judgement, it becomes, "I'm right and you're wrong", whether you want it to or not.
If you're a vegan for health reasons, a meat-eater can ignore it easily. They can decide that they don't care about their own health, that they will do other things about their health to compensate, or that your choice is based on ignorance. Whatever they decide, it is easier to accept your decision that way.
When you decide not to eat meat for moral reasons, we can infer that you think it is better behavior. When you explain your reasons, it can be interpreted like an argument to convince others. The inference and the interpretation are probably either wrong or irrelevant, but that doesn't matter.
It is difficult to accept differences of opinion on morality unless they are clothed in religion. We accept religious freedom because it is drilled into us. When someone has moral views that differ from ours based on their religion, it is easy to accept that they would come to the different opinion because they were trained to do so. When someone independently arrives at a moral choice, we can't write it off to dogma. It is hard not to treat it as criticism, or even condemnation.
I think you are discovering that people have a remarkably low tolerance for ethical proponents, no matter how low-key. It doesn't matter that you never bring it up, that you're only responding to the question "why don't you eat meat?," or that you don't finish by saying "you should do like I do." I've found that almost any discussion in the format "A is right and B is wrong, so I try to do A," is resented by a surprisingly large (to me) percentage of listeners. I think this phenomenon tracks across a wide range of ethical issues and systems, whether conservative, liberal, religious, secular, etc. Some people find it admirable (if perhaps alien), others are curious, a small percentage might even be opening to considering your position, and a large number act as if you were attacking them by just answering their question.
To be clear about my earlier post, I'm not accusing you of inconsistency--I think we should often leave certain disagreements dormant unless circumstances dictate otherwise. But I suspect that thought is what motivates people to be dicks.
've found that almost any discussion in the format "A is right and B is wrong, so I try to do A," is resented by a surprisingly large (to me) percentage of listeners.
Why would it be surprising that people resent being told that something they do is wrong?
The question of the morality of eating meat is interesting, precisely because most people do not find eating meat to be morally problematic.
On other life choices, there are (and have been) moral problems, but people make the choices anyway, usually because they see a greater good beyond the "temporary" or "necessary" evil (though not always). One might put abortion, contraception (perhaps), and what have you, into this category.
Hence (for instance), those opposed to abortion and those in favor of severe limitations may often debate, with benefits to both sides. However, because eating meat is not even seen as a necessary evil by the majority of the population, but as an enjoyable benefit of life, the conversation is much more difficult for the ethical veg*an.
On the other hand, what the veg*ns are talking about is a very real phenomenon: meat-eaters who are angry at you for not eating meat.
Network effects. That's why vegans and meat-eaters care.
Also we've had a vegan marry into my family and its a royal pain, especially at holidays. Meals are supposed to be communal things, not a little laundry list of preferences where someone has to have every stinking dish made separate for them.
But if vegans all lived in Alaska, I wouldn't care.
What we really need is the solution from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: intelligent animals specially bred to understand that they are being raised as food, and to request that they be eaten.
Or we could just genetically engineer a new variety of human beings, modified to not be intelligent, and eat them. Thus avoiding the ethical dilemma of consuming another species.
the whole thing is the association of groups. You say you are vegan, and the omnivore immediately remembers the last vegan that wouldn't leave them alone! or vegetarian who yelled meat is murder! at them. If they have been frineds with either group, they want to maintain connections with their friends, and so they try to make themselves the least bad through appologetics, or unusual veggie dishes at a party, just to keep the peace.
We remember not the 10 good things, but the one bad one. Some people react well to the memory, and some poorly. That is why people try to CONVERT both ways. They are acting poorly. Mixner says, "we do not know" and talks about shame. Well, in terms of conversion you just answered zero. People resent being shamed, and they will eventually rebel.
If you actually want to convert someone shut up about the health benefits, the ethics and so forth. Talk taste, show how easy, show how cheap. THEN introduce health in a subtle way, or introduce humane products in a subtle way.
What average Joe on Street deals with is being led to something, NOT prodded into it with sticks. The upshot of explaining how you can eath humanely raised beef, is to defacto indicate, that you think that person is reating INhumanely raised beef, and shouldn't they feel bad about that. You invalidate whatever they have done. IF you want to talk beef raising, do it as a different conversation. If yo want to talk how vegies are better for you do it as a conversation about health, NOT about eating.
Pick the lock on the door, don't break it down. How many people would rather live happily till their 60's rather than miserably till their 90's? You have to show that it is POSSIBLE to not be miserable eating certain types of foods, and you do that by leading, not prodding. Not Shaming. Shaming, is what you do to make yourself feel better. If you really care all that much, lead people to your way of thinking... YMMV
I agree with Megan's comments, up to a point. Leading by example is generally more effective than lecturing people on why they are wrong. But how long would it have taken to abolish slavery if those opposed had confined themselves to leading by example (i.e., not owning slaves themselves)? Where would the women's movement be today if it had relied on those men in favour of sexual equality leading by example? ("No, now that you ask, I don't beat my wife. But far be it from me to criticize you if you beat yours.") And in the case of animal abuse, the victims, unlike slaves and women, have no power to speak up and rise up themselves. In that respect, animals are more like children, almost entirely reliant on the good will of others -- except that most animals are in the position of being unloved orphans whose labour and bodies can be profitably and pleasurably exploited.
Living in Boulder, I've met my share of vegetarians and vegans, including a few roommates. Only one has proselytized. A large number know I hunt, while only one really complained,and her meat came from slaughterhouses. Friends elsewhere do not report such harmony. Just a guess, but I think that everyone here knows enough people with different dietary preferences that it's hard to get excited about it.
Why would it be surprising that people resent being told that something they do is wrong?
I do my share of things that others might have moral problems with: drinking and gambling come to mind. And while I wouldn't particularly care to be lectured about it, I just can't see getting offended or resentful if I asked someone why they didn't drink or gamble and they told me they thought it was morally wrong.
Now, if I thought I was doing something wrong, it might bother me. But you don't want to join in for a nice glass of scotch? I'll toast your health :-)
A large number know I hunt, while only one really complained,and her meat came from slaughterhouses.
That category of anti-hunter really pisses me off. I can live with ethical vegans, but not moralistic hypocrites.
I have the odd capability of not taking arguments over ethics/morals/religion/politics personally, though I do have the power to make others cry and/or wish they'd never brought these topics up. What I've found is that though many people love to express their opinions, hardly anyone wants to defend them. This is especially apparent in discussions about the morality of the consumption of animal products. Any vegans I've known well have either refused to discuss their position when pressed, or were simply using veganism as a way to lose weight, and weren't interested in the moral aspect of the diet.
I do my share of things that others might have moral problems with: drinking and gambling come to mind.
So, if somebody earnestly told you that drinking was equivalent to murder, you wouldn't feel the slightest bit uncomfortable around him?
I think once you claim to hold some belief as any kind of value judgement, it becomes, "I'm right and you're wrong", whether you want it to or not.
This is because most people live with a basic level of logical coherence; the statement "I have made moral choice x but I don't expect or require that you make moral choice x as well really makes no rational sense, taken to any logical end. But that's a bigger discussion than you or I want to get into, I imagine.
We remember not the 10 good things, but the one bad one. Some people react well to the memory, and some poorly. That is why people try to CONVERT both ways. They are acting poorly. Mixner says, "we do not know" and talks about shame. Well, in terms of conversion you just answered zero. People resent being shamed, and they will eventually rebel.
You have a very naive and simple-minded view of human psychology. Yes, shaming people can backfire, but it can obviously also motivate them to abandon or modify the behavior of which they become ashamed. "Conversion" is too crude a term for it. More often, being confronted repeatedly with the suffering of animals may lead someone to think twice about ordering the veal at a restaurant, or maybe to buy the free-range chicken at the grocery store instead of the factory-farmed one, or to vote for the ban on steel-jawed traps instead of ignoring it or voting against. Many people do change their views on moral and ethical issues significantly during their lives, but the change is often incremental and occurs over a long period of time in response to a steady stream of information and propaganda, rather than being a rapid and dramatic conversion.
Peta is probably the most aggressive major animal rights organization in the world. It is also one of the most successful.
PS I grew up on the campus of Wesleyan University (the model for the college in PCU, incidentally). I can vouch for the fact that, in some contexts, e-vegan-gelicals most certainly exist.
I'm not one to start an argument about food - I really don't care what anybody else eats as long as they don't try to impair my ability to eat what I want.
However, what gets on my nerves about ethical veg*ns is that when the topic is broached they tend to make ethical arguments from disgust (such as the "cow pus" example). Disgust in and of itself isn't a rational argument - it's just an appeal to emotion. I'm personally uniformly unpersuaded by arguments from disgust - I wouldn't eat shrimp paste or be pro-choice if I thought finding an image digusting was a sound basis for making a decision - but the visceral reaction remains and I resent the usage of discomforting emotional cues on me to try influence an intellectual argument. I know there are more sophisticated arguments for ethical veg*nism (which I don't find persuasive, but they don't annoy me either), but the "Look at this disgusting video of a poultry plant - I bet you'll never want to eat meat again." approach is commmon and obnoxious enough that I frequently find myself annoyed with ethical veg*ns when the topic comes up.
there's something that rings false about "this is what I feel morally obliged to do, but I really hold no opinion about what you do."
This is exactly right. It's consistent with a certain form of cheap moralizing (which Megan does often).
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this statement here:
While I do explain, when asked, my decision to only eat humanely raised meat, I've never finished up with " . . . and that's why you should too, you cruel, thoughtless bastard."
You don't have to. You already did when you used the word "humane".
Of course, that's an absurdity in and of itself. "It's okay to kill animals for food, provided you're NICE to them!"
I have never met a vegan who wasn't a monumental dimwit, ripe for mocking.
Unfortunately, that sort of mindset makes these discussions unpleasant, if not pointless. I'm sure this thread will soon degenerate into, you know, pithless PETA puns and various posters ruminating on their steak lunches.
So, if somebody earnestly told you that drinking was equivalent to murder, you wouldn't feel the slightest bit uncomfortable around him?
I'd think it was a poorly formed opinion. There are better arguments that could be made against gambling that I could dismiss.
More generally, I'm not saying it's impossible for someone to make me uncomfortable through being confrontational. But being uncomfortable because someone says "I don't do that for moral reasons," or even (upon being asked) saying that they think killing animals is akin to murder, would (and does) not make me uncomfortable. I honestly can't see why it would.
I've had quite a number of vegetarian friends, and a couple of vegan ones. None of them has ever made me feel uncomfortable, that I can think of, and I know that some of them refrain for moral reasons.
Megan,
You obviously eat meat ... the humanely raised meat issue is a pig to slaughter another day ... but in regards to veg*nism or what have you, I suppose the aggression, or passion as I would prefer to describe it arises from what I would describe as a slavish faith to pseudo-science, perhaps on both sides. Whether eating meat, or not (though, I must admit, my sister's doctor advised her to not cut out meats entirely - as in fish or poultry) it all comes down to how one leads his or her life, and with what sort of moderation one eats these things. I mean, for God's sake, they say even Soy is bad to eat too much of. So I think that it is the polarity of the arguments that heats up the thread, without much common sense. Once again, I've spoken with doctors who've said that too often the tendency is for people to go to extremes of either one end or the other, and therein lies the true rub. there is no real "secret" to health. The secret is get exercise, sleep, and avoid too much junk food.
"On the other hand, what the veg*ns are talking about is a very real phenomenon: meat-eaters who are angry at you for not eating meat."
Actually, I stopped getting angry a long time ago, precisely because I realized I was doing this, and it didn't make any sense. (Also, vegetarians have a tendency to be pretty girls, and picking boneheaded arguments with pretty girls is rarely conducive to further productive social contact.)
Now I'm much more at peace. To me, the beliefs of veg*ns are so out there that they became irrelevant. It's like someone telling me like to stand their coffee table on its edge because it looks better. The only appropriate response is saying "...O-kay" and moving on.
Although if the person wants to have that conversation I'll do it gladly, but that's just because I love a good argument.
Or maybe--just maybe--the passion of vegans and vegetarians can be explained by the fact that if you grant any moral status to animals, the mass torture and slaughter of animals becomes undesirable.
Tolerance for a multitude of moral choices and judgments is basically the foundation of a free society. So yeah, I expect you stop eating meat inasmuch as any other person expects you to adhere to their values.
Tolerance for a multitude of moral choices and judgments is basically the foundation of a free society.
Tolerance, of course, implies negative judgment. And that's precisely what's at issue here. I'm not talking about legality or rights. The claim is being made in this space that vegans don't make moral judgments about meat-eaters' diet. But if the decision to adopt veganism is the product of a moral decision, there is no coherent sense in which that decision doesn't construe judgment of those who don't make the decision. If it doesn't, it's not a moral choice.
You know what tastes good? Bacon.
The corner-preacher comparison is a good one, I think.
I am sure that most conversations I have had with veg*ns have been level-headed and fair. However, the ones that stand out are the people handing out fliers accusing farmers of genocide, predicting early deaths of McDonalds patrons, or generally sounding like fervent creationists at an evolutionary biology conference.
Actually, the claim that's being made is that meat-eaters react with undue severity to the polite, personal, and largely passive value statements vegans/vegetarians make about their own dietary choices. Which is why I mention tolerance--you would not, presumably react to a co-worker's off-hand mention of church by telling them they're a deluded idiot, and that you're going to rape a baby for Satan tonight on their account. The issue here is not judgment, because that's a given--it's that you treat every form of that judgment as though it's the rudest possible form.
The issue here is not judgment, because that's a given--it's that you treat every form of that judgment as though it's the rudest possible form.
Perhaps you should explain that "judgment is a given" to the people in this thread making claims to the contrary. People are pointing out that they don't agree with the judgment that is being made of them by vegans; others are suggesting that no such judgment is being made. I'm merely pointing out that of course a judgment is being made, and people have plenty of reason to be pissed off at that judgment.
Also, let me point out that this--
most of us have come to the conclusion that it is a psychological defense mechanism employed by people who think that we're right, but don't want to make the modest hedonic sacrifice necessary to comply with this ethical position. So you're not only not persuading us to change our ways; you're reinforcing our belief in the correctness of our choice.
--is really, really lame, and utterly undercuts her larger claim. You don't really believe what you say you do! You're just operating under a psychological delusion. Because using pop psychology to tell people that they're deluded isn't the least bit judgmental or moralizing, right?
I suspect Njorl has the right of it -- many people upon hearing "for ethical reasons, I don't do X" when they are about to do X, presume that the speaker is subtly appending, "unlike you, asshole."
Of course, any hypothesis needs evidence, so here's a test for the scientifically minded: Next time a group of friends and/or close associates proposes a run to Starbucks, tell them that you no longer eat at restaurants for ethical reasons. If (when) pressed, explain that you consider any exchange of money for general knowledge skills too close to treating people as means instead of ends, and thus is tantamount to slavery. Money for goods is fine, money for specific knowledge (doctors, major auto repair) is fine, money for basic services like cooking and waitressing are out. Remind people of this every time they want to go out for food, drinks, and so on. Chart how long it takes until outbursts like the ones Megan describes take place. (A dedicated experimenter might need to start brown-bagging lunch or put the maid service on hiatus until the experiment completes.)
you would not, presumably react to a co-worker's off-hand mention of church by telling them they're a deluded idiot, and that you're going to rape a baby for Satan tonight on their account
Actually, I think that's why atheists are often treated badly; because there are a (thankfully) few who do react roughly that way.
I think the whole vegan/omnivore dynamic (featuring obnoxious behavior on both sides) is very similar to the atheist/believer dynamic, with similar moral judgment/excessive rhetoric/weird overreactions.
Must be where I live (NC), but I have just not been around that many sermonizing vegitarians/vegans.
Most hardly ever mention that they do not eat meat and even at family gatherings do not make special request. They just eat what is available and since we know they are vegiatarians/vegan we usually make sure there is some option for them.
I have however, seen meat eaters go out of their way to be insulting to vegitarians/vegans.
I recently have decided to become largely a vegitarian (meat about once a week from local producers), it was based on a combination of moral, health, enviromental and economic reasons.
I do not expect other to do the same and most people that I am around do not know what I eat or why I eat it, it is none of their business and it is not my business what they do.
I just gave you crap because it is fun.
I must admit ... my great great grandfather was a sausage maker from Germany, and when he came to America, his son was a meat-packer in Chicago, his son, a butcher, and so on so meat's pretty much been in my family.
Anyway, I heard that Ingrid Newkirk has declared that she will put herself up for butchering upon her death to point out the hypocrisy of our eating animals for food. My only questions are a) does anyone think that meat will still be good by then and if it is b) how can I get some Newkirk Tenderloin? Some fellow on a show about cannibalism I saw once speculated that if one were to eat human it would probably taste like pork.
Human ... the other, OTHER white meat!
Second--reason to be pissed about it? Well, again, people face dozens if not hundreds of implicit value judgments in a given day, and, for the most part, ignore them or respond politely. That's the tolerance I mentioned. Megan's point (if I'm allowed to speak for her, anyway) is that such tolerance is less often extended to veg*ns, even though the form of their statements/judgments is essentially identical to any other you'd encounter and brush off.
This is because most people live with a basic level of logical coherence; the statement "I have made moral choice x but I don't expect or require that you make moral choice x as well really makes no rational sense, taken to any logical end.
I don't think that is necessarily so. There is a whole set of grey areas in morality. In these areas, we often have situations where there is no easily demonstrated moral course. In those situations we are left to our own devices. Often, we are reduced to emotional justifications.
When you feel like something is immoral, yet can not formulate a cogent, logical argument as to why it is wrong, you are not justified in denying that behavior to anyone but yourself. I have never seen a cogent, logical morl argument for veganism, but I can easily understand the feelings involved.
Or maybe--just maybe--the passion of vegans and vegetarians can be explained by the fact that if you grant any moral status to animals, the mass torture and slaughter of animals becomes undesirable.
Exactly right. And I refuse to eat any steak not certified to have come from a cow that was waterboarded in a foreign CIA prison.
The vegans and vegetarians at my college do a pretty good job of making their case by running a cheap vegan restaurant and having vegetarian potlucks. I taste something good...I substitute it into my diet. I'm not a complete vegan since I happen to work in sustainable ag and it's hard to turn things down with a small farmer offer you some pork belly, but slowly I am eating less and less meat.
Do your part. Make delicious food. Share it with your friends.
This thread demonstrates the useless moralizing that makes people hate veg*ns. I have two categories of veg*ns - religious ones and ethical ones. Religious ones are easy to deal with as our ecumenical tradition from the enlightenment lets us gloss over substantial differences in the interest of social peace. Ethical veg*ns (including health oriented veg*ns, because for the secular getting cancer and dying is pretty much Hell) come at you with secular arguments and our environment does not accept conflicting morality divorced from religion. You'll notice this in politics especially (though not as much as I'd like, with the attacks on Romney not being a real Christian) where both sides routinely charge the other side with being immoral. Our liberal, tolerant society is desperately unwilling to actually be, you know, tolerant. This is especially odd from the aggressively secular, but it is a very complex subject.
A further point: it is hard if not impossible to live with people who have very different food preferences. Keeping kosher for passover is one thing, but if you are sharing a house, you either keep kosher or you don't, and you are restricted in your restaurant choices as well. Just as I won't be dating or marrying someone who is an Orthodox Jew, I won't be dating or marrying a veg*n.
It's manageable at most restaurants to have people who are omnivores and veg*ns, but it's inherently infeasible to be constantly prepping two types of meals at home day to day and for holidays. Similarly, I won't be dating or marrying someone who doesn't drink alchohol, avoids caffeine, or doesn't read. They are all things that are important in my life and that I enjoy sharing with those closest to me. Friends and lovers need to have things in common with you and provide a refuge from the world, not act as sources of conflict and tension. Go to your veg*n ghetto and leave me alone.
When someone tells me that eating meat is morally equivalent to e.g. littering, then I don't have any problem with that, and we get on fine.
When someone tells me that eating meat is morally equivalent to murder, then it seems they are saying that they are entitled to use deadly force to stop me. That is what commiting an act like murder actually means.
I regard someone telling me that they can use deadly force on me to be a direct threat. I respond in an appropriate manner. Fortunately, I know that they are too wimpy to actually act on their beliefs, as well as being too skinny and weak to actually hurt me, but it doesn't mean I'll refrain from ordering the sucking pig.
mijnheer, I'm curious where you stand on the abortion question. Substitute "fetus" for "animal" in your argument (not verbatim, but darn close), and you've made a perfect argument for the pro-life cause.
"No, now that you ask, I don't beat my wife. But far be it from me to criticize you if you beat yours" is an exact analogue to "I think a fetus is a baby myself, but I would never impose my belief on you" -- an argument made by many (though by no means all) in the pro-choice camp.
"Also we've had a vegan marry into my family and its a royal pain, especially at holidays. Meals are supposed to be communal things, not a little laundry list of preferences where someone has to have every stinking dish made separate for them."
To bounce off what Njorl was saying before about religious freedom-training (and also Justin about religious purity codes), imagine the above quote with "vegan" replaced by "Jewish person who keeps kosher." I'm not saying such complaints would never be voiced, but I'm guessing it would less likely (do folks agree?).
Of course, there's no presumption of universal applicability in that case - in fact, the exact opposite. But there are plenty of other religious beliefs & practices where that is the idea - including, for example, the belief that said hypothetical Jewish person will suffer horribly though all eternity unless they accept Jesus, etc. - but lots of folks here generally manage to let it go in the interests of peaceful & quiet coexistence. (Others, well . . .)
[I see, hitting Preview, that Hey is proving me wrong. Of course, I'm in the kind of mixed-diet marriage Hey insists is impossible, so whatever. And no, I'm not going 'back' to some veg*n ghetto (which I never was in to begin with) though I certainly have no wish to bother them.)]
However, this does get to another possible motive for folks jumping down the throats of perfectly nice veg*ans - food is loaded down with symbolic and social significance - ties of culture, tradition, family, etc. It's also normal, mainstream, the way things are done. Some of the 'Hey, how do you know carrots don't have feelings too, huh? Doesn't this burger smell GOOD, doncha want try some, you know you do!' people might be reacting to this. (Although I think this may be becoming less and less a factor, at least in certain areas, largely through the kind of thing Megan mentions - not entirely unlike some of the reasons gay people are less and less frightening).
In this case, such over-reactions may be serving as a kind of group boundary maintenance -either to pull the person back into the fold, or construct them as definitely outside it. Certainly they tend to invoke a kind of humor which seems - like a lot of humor - to involve a fair bit of veiled (verbal) aggression, which would fit . .
"Moral vegans choose not to eat for ethical reasons. As a result, they believe that those who do eat meat are not ethical people"
Sigh. Thank you for telling me what I (supposedly) think. In reality, my wife's not a vegetarian, and I certainly don't imagine she's not an ethical person (rather more than me, I'd guess). Tons of people eat meat, and I don't make a priori judgements about their ethicalness. It's a morally difficult and often unjust world out there - we do what we can. See Megan's next post. I may disagree with her on quite a few things, but she does a rather good job there.
"There is actually a study done on the difference between moral and health vegetarians by Paul Rozin"
No doubt Haidt would say I'm just rationalizing, but if that's what it is, there are nevertheless fairly reasonable rationalizations for some of these differences. If you're a 'health vegetarian', there's no reason to "refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen - any effect on your health is going to be basically nonexistent. If you're a moral vegetarian, you've decided to not involve yourself in the consumption of animals for moral reasons, so on one sense all amounts are equivalent.
Granted, the "more likely to imbue their dietary habits with other virtues, like believing that meat avoidance makes people less aggressive and bestial" bit seems pretty irrationally moralistic, but I do have to add that I've never heard any vegetarian express this particular belief, nor seen it in any veggie literature, so something's a bit odd here.
MattXIV - interestingly, you're talking about two different kinds of disgusting. The "cow pus" stuff is pretty much about purity concerns that probably ultimately play off our deep-down, instinctual reactions of disgust to rot, feces, etc. The "look at this poultry plant" stuff, on the other hand, is often - at least in part - about harm concerns -' look how badly these creatures are mistreated/suffering - isn't that disgusting?' (See that NY Times Moral Instinct article for more details.)
Freddie"This is because most people live with a basic level of logical coherence"
Really?
"Human ... the other, OTHER white meat!
Nah, that's Bjork.
"When someone tells me that eating meat is morally equivalent to murder, then it seems they are saying that they are entitled to use deadly force to stop me . . . I regard someone telling me that they can use deadly force on me to be a direct threat. I respond in an appropriate manner."
Don't tase me, bro! Seriously, though, since this theme - the vegetarian insisting that "meat is murder" has come up a couple times here - remember, we're talking specifically about non-preachy vegetarians. Do you imagine or experience such folks staring at your (even sucking pig) plate and yelling "meat is murder!"? I don't think I've ever said that. (To be fair, I'm a bit morally fuzzy about whether meat is murder, or at least really super-murderous murder - it's a lot more about animal welfare and ecological/social issues for me - and these relatively fine-grained distinctions may (or may not) make a difference.
"mijnheer, I'm curious where you stand on the abortion question. Substitute "fetus" for "animal" in your argument (not verbatim, but darn close), and you've made a perfect argument for the pro-life cause."
It's a really interesting contrast. (I don't know how much overlap there really is - my gut feeling is: relatively little, but that might have to do more with my specific environment.) I don't think most vegetarians would dream of outlawing meat-eating (outlawing factory farming, perhaps, or at least strictly regulating it, sure). And although it may be a squeaky-wheel issue, one can certainly get the impression that most personally-anti-abortion folks would love to make abortion illegal, with the pro-choice pro-lifers being rather in the minority. Interesting.
In other respects, there are some striking similarities, including a fervent belief in the power of experience - esp, visual experience - to reveal [what's regarded as] unseen and not-really-understood atrocities, and produce moral awakenings. For (some) of us veggies it's pictures of the horrors of industrial agriculture - mutilated animals crammed into tiny cages, hellish, non-stop slaughterhouses,etc. - for the anti-abortion folks it's dismembered fetuses, ultrasounds, etc..
Well. Now if somebody just started raising fetuses in horrible conditions for food, using badly exploited women as near-slave labor, they could unite almost everyone against them . .
My question for Megan & the vegans/vegetarians,
How do y'all "know" it's healthier not to eat meat? I mean, for me, really that's the key. I want to eat as healthy as possible. I eat loads of fish, tofu, spinach, veggies, and fruit. I eat other kinds of meat as well, and I'm just quite curious: what does the research say? The data points i've seen and my own intuition suggests its complicated: The vegans who get charged for manslaughter after feeding their baby nothing but soy milk; the fact that, during most of human history, we ate sizeable quantities of meat (how could we not have adapted genetically to eating meat?), the fact that after the birth of agriculture, there was a large decline in overall health of the human race, as our bodies weren't used to the all-carb diet, the results of experiments by the stanford swim team, which concluded that getting lots of protein is key...
What facts go in the other direction? I'd like to know...
To bounce off what Njorl was saying before about religious freedom-training (and also Justin about religious purity codes), imagine the above quote with "vegan" replaced by "Jewish person who keeps kosher." I'm not saying such complaints would never be voiced, but I'm guessing it would less likely (do folks agree?).
Dan, I was thinking about this during my daily enforced internet absence, and I think the difference lies in the source of the rules. A vegan imposes rules on himself. An Orthodox Jew has rules imposed on him by God.
A vegan who refuses to accomodate his family at Thanksgiving and demands that they make special foods for him is (rudely, in my view) demanding that they bend to suit his whims (if he's so bothered about the butter in the mashed potatoes, let him bring his own food and microwave it). It is quite reasonable to expect that he might bend his own rules for the sake of everyone else.
On the flip side, someone with religious obligations can't exactly get a private letter ruling from God allowing him to eat the gentiles' ham one day a year. He has no choice but to comply with God's dictates as he understands them. So he gets a pass from us because we understand that he is, in some sense at least, without any power in the matter.
Dan S., let me join others in telling you what you think. If you are an ethical vegetarian and your wife is not, then you believe that you are morally superior to her with regard to eating meat (unless she has some out, such as a chronic disease that prevents her from living on a vegetarian diet). That you feel morally superior to her with regard to eating meat is a logical entailment of your ethical position -- i.e., it follows necessarily. Sorry, you don't have a choice on that one. All in all, your wife may be much closer to sainthood than you are, but on meat-eating, you're the man.
As a veg*an, I would love to outlaw meat-eating, and I promise to do so at the first opportunity. Unfortunately, that opportunity is not likely to arise soon. To this point, society has bowed to my desire to outlaw rape, assault with a deadly weapon, and child abuse. I'm still pondering the matter of jaywalking, though my city seems to have gone ahead on that one without consulting me. As for abortion: fetuses in the first several months are not sentient, so they don't count. And when a mother's life or health is at risk, she has the right of self-defence. There is no parallel with killing sentient animals.
This just in:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080122.wcomment0123/BNStory/International/home
Live to be 100.
Any strong data to suggest that vegetarians live longer?
It seems likely that vegetarian diets are often high in carbohydrates. This has risks. See Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories.
If you're keeping strictly kosher in one kitchen, while someone else isn't... how exactly does that work? 3 sets of plates? 3 sets of everything? How many ovens?? I'm more than slightly familiar with kashrut, and how having a gentile around complicates things (except on Friday evenings, when we're a key asset).
I'm not going to marry an Orthodox Jew because I'm a gentile, and it's ever so slightly hard for that interfaith marriage to go down well at temple. Either I'd need to convert (not all that encouraged, nor likely on my part) or she'd need to leave her temple and likely her family. For all intents and purposes she'd no longer be Orthodox. Same with Kosher - I'd either adopt or she'd go non-kosher.
Having a mixed veg*n marriage is somewhat more possible, but very hard if you are doing it over morality. How can you live with someone who commits so many murders and is culpable for so much torture? How can you handle seeing your own kitchen polluted with the filth?
" How can you handle seeing your own kitchen polluted with the filth?"
I think this may well go back to Haidt's work - which among other things, found that liberals tended to score a lot lower on the purity (and authority) bits of that general morality model. (Although I still think some of it's that the questions are written with conservative morality in mind, and miss the folks who think that meat is icky, etc.
"How do y'all "know" it's healthier not to eat meat? I"
I don't. A good vegetarian diet is probably better than the standard Western diet at least in some regards, but that says more about the standard Western diet, really . . . Indeed, I stopped making such claims a while back - once the (pop) data didn't seem to suggest that anymore - and Megan only makes a passing (and not especially conclusive) reference.
What you really should be doing is hunting down wild game and gathering an wide range of wild vegetables, tubers, fruits, and seeds. Maybe.
Rob says: On the flip side, someone with religious obligations can't exactly get a private letter ruling from God allowing him to eat the gentiles' ham one day a year.
I saw a show the other night where there was a muslim serving in the navy aboard an aircraft carrier. Her had a special dispensation from his cleric to not have to face Mecca to pray since it is somewhat hard to do while in the bowels of the carrier.
Hey says: having a gentile around complicates things (except on Friday evenings, when we're a key asset)
I've always thought this was kinda funny, myself.
But the idea of the "interfaith marriage" does play in here, I think. Seems to me that if it is easy for you to convert to please your spouse/family/etc then you don't hold the conviction strong enough for it to really matter. And if it is not, then the idea of a happy interfaith marriage seems impossible as you would always have conflict ("unevenly yoked" I think is how the Bible puts it). The obvious exception is where one or both are really only nominally religious.
But to stay on topic, this seems to be a lot like the "morality" veg*n issue: you find folks who are on both sides who range from nominally serious to actually very serious.
Freddie says: This is because most people live with a basic level of logical coherence; the statement "I have made moral choice x but I don't expect or require that you make moral choice x as well really makes no rational sense, taken to any logical end.
and later on,
if the decision to adopt veganism is the product of a moral decision, there is no coherent sense in which that decision doesn't construe judgment of those who don't make the decision. If it doesn't, it's not a moral choice.
100% correct on both counts. BUT....I don't think logical coherence ranks very high in most people's criteria for values. Or at least not as high as we'd like to think. More commonly, they pick values that seem to be good and fit the way they think and/or want to live. Thus, it is easy to hold values or do things that don't make logical sense (even seen a doctor who smokes?) because they're not thinking about it that deeply. This is how you can hold "moral" positions that don't require anything of you.
You seem to be confused: if you eat meat, even if it is 'ethically' raised, you are not a vegetarian. To be vegetarian means you eat vegetables.
Also, I've been a vegetarian for about 17 years. I have never encountered these angry meat eaters you write about. Perhaps you're talking about your diet too much? Believe me, it's not an interesting topic to strangers as your posting demonstrates.
BUMPER STICKER: If we're not supposed to eat animals, why do they taste so good?
Maybe this thread is dead and there's no one to answer, but this is killing me: what's with the "*" in "veg*n" or "veg*an." The word is just "vegan," right?
Some fellow on a show about cannibalism I saw once speculated that if one were to eat human it would probably taste like pork.
Human ... the other, OTHER white meat!
Which is why, I suppose, that the New Guinean languages (from where cannibalism was more than just a casual occurrence) have given us the useful euphemism of "long pig"....
Do you imagine or experience such folks staring at your (even sucking pig) plate and yelling "meat is murder!"?
Nobody has ever said this to me. But they've certainly worn T-shirts and put up posters proclaiming this.
The fact that people don't usually say things like this to other people's faces is probably why most of the time being a vegyn or vegetarian is not really going to result in angry meat eaters.
I guess Megan just hangs out with rude people.
I agree that it is more effective to teach people why a vegan diet is best for them, the planet, and animals (every vegetarian save more than 100 animals each year). It is true, however, that most social movements tend to be successful because people "prosletyze." Just as people need to speak up when we see others abusing children, we need to explain to meat-eaters that it isn't right to torture and kill animals. Of course, this should be done in a polite, civilized way.
So, Megan, while I am really glad that you are eating "humanely-raised meat" instead of meat from factory-farmed animals, I must also point out that the only truly humane option is a vegan diet.
“Vegan's just another word for ‘nothing left to eat.’”
If you truly feel this way, you should expand the intake of plants in your diet some more regardless of whether you embrace the vegan ideal of pursuing non-exploitation and non-violence on a personal level. There’s lots’ to eat besides animal stuff. Stick your feet in for a little while, but really, don’t hesitate to come on in, the water’s fine!
On proselytizing, sure no one likes to be told how to live. Realize, non-vegans use the term proselytizing and conversion to associate veganism with negative connotations of a religion, but rest assured, it can be quite a rational lifestyle choice free of supernatural intervention or mysticism (not that there aren’t vegans who pursuit it in that way, hey, that's cool too).
On the other hand, I heard about vegetarianism from somewhere, if someone didn’t spread the word, how would I have found out? When I speak up, (and by speak up I mean write stuff on the Internet as I don’t vocalize my lifestyle unless asked and even then I’m fairly evasive, veganism doesn’t make for good sound bites) I hope to influence someone like myself at the time when I used to consume animals thinking, “It’s a shame that eating animals is necessary”. Once this information was made known to me, that it isn’t necessary, and I confirmed that I wouldn’t die by abstaining from exploiting animals to fulfill my dietary requirements, it made me happy. I was glad to be told that veganism was a viable option.
Perhaps I was lucky though, I never had a vegan scream at me or accuse me of anything when I was a meat-eater. I can’t condemn anyone for eating animals; I was there once too. However, I can appreciate a more vocal vegan’s zeal in condemning the practice, I often think that I should do the same and not “hide” my ethics. Really though, I learned quite early that when I sit at a table among typical meat-eaters and make my choices without saying a word (yeah, I’ll maybe inquire with the server about dairy or whatever, but otherwise), it’s like I’m shouting as I contently enjoy my meal. I know, a meat-eater here will accuse me of being pretentious and pious, but there it is.
Actually, there was this one girl who was fairly outspoken, not rude, but well, everyone knew her position -- “the animal nut”, but really that was just her personality. Even I thought she was a little nutty though (now I’m “the nut”). But well, if I saw her now, I would consider either apologizing for thinking what I thought, or maybe even thanking her, or at least saying, “Now, I understand.” The kind of understanding that compells action, or in this case, non-action, non-exploitation, non-violence.
As for the arguments of what’s natural and what’s healthier as a vegan even I don’t hold much stock in them, (save for drinking another species milk as that is kind of odd when you think about it and it’s taken for granted as normal and necessary.)
You can eat animal stuffs and lead a healthy life and you cannot eat animal stuffs and lead a healthy life. Or on both diets, you can screw yourself royally by being nutritionally negligent, any diet holds some risk (perhaps some more than others) and need to be managed with care and attention, there’s no magic bullet there. As for staved vegan babies, please, vegan or non-vegan, there are lots of bad parents and you still need to feed babies sensibly, there are books out there for new parents on how to raise children regardless of diet.
Good Calories, Bad Calories is an interesting book, but “carbs makes us fat” doesn’t seem to be the case for me, your mileage may vary. Veganism isn’t a diet plan to lose weight (despite what some bitchy best-selling book may imply). Sure it’s possible to lose weight on a plant based diet, you can lose weight on Weight Watchers or Atkins, but veganism is more than diet and it’s not the reason why the practice came into being. That’s great that health conscious people advocate and thrive on an exclusive plant-based diet, but don't mistake it for veganism, it really is much more than that.
In 2008, in the indutrialized-modern world, it’s simply unnecessary for me to exploit animals when there is an abundance of plants to consume. Animals are too similar to myself, and if not myself, than to any domestic animal I’ve meet and that I know many people love and even regard as part of their family; they feel, they are self-aware, they give birth and nurse their young. Plant sentience? No nervous system, no sensory organs, no sentience, that’s Biology 101. In respect to my treatment of any person, intelligence is not a determining factor of whether I should exploit them because there are plenty of people smarter and stronger than myself, and I’d hate to think that someone would feel justified to take advantage of me because it is culturally acceptable or gives them some fleeting pleasure.
Is it ultimately “wrong” to exploit animals, to exploit those less intelligent or weaker then myself when there is seldom any need? Hey, I dunno, that’s up to each individual to decide or for God(s) to judge (if you believe in a higher moral authority). It certainly is morally defensible for me to avoid exploiting animals, it’s certainly not wrong or even that problematic (like advocating ethical slaughter). Nothing would happen if my moral compass turned out to be off. What would God or some higher power holding judgment over my actions have to say, “No, you could have exploited all the animals you wanted (except for pigs and shrimp like the Bible clearly states), but that was a nice gesture anyway.” Perhaps the Buddists are right and I’m that much closer to enlightenment. That doesn’t matter to me, I don’t have to rely on a mystical “next life” to try to live by my ethics in this life, I have nothing to lose by doing so.
It’s easy enough for me to avoid the culturally presumed “omnivores dilemmas” and all the other issues that plague participating in animal agriculture and consumption. Free-range? Pastured? Fishery depletion? Humane? Cloned? Hormones? Mercury? Dioxins? Pathogens? Why even bother? If meat, dairy, egg eaters didn’t have ethical issues with their animal exploitation why is this humane farming movement around? It isn’t just animal rights activists bringing these things up. Regarding the ethically raised animals movement, sorry, but, meh. Relying on animal domination and thier foodstuffs is what got us into this industrial agriculture mess in the first place. Veganism is a more ethically consistent and elegant solution for my tastes. Most of those people I know ethically advocating free-range and humanly raised still go to McDonalds or non-humane restaurants anyway, it just doesn't seem that compelling an ethical position. Whereas the vegans and vegetarians I know, though they vary in their personal degrees, are at least consistent more times than not. All vegans have their exceptions, known or unknown -- that's just the reality of the situation where the cultural slides animal “by-products” into everything, but the “easy” stuff -- what goes in their mouth that is clearly identifiable, is usually consistently avoided.
Was my carrot treated nicely? Look, just try to keep pesticide use down to a minimum (it’s bad for me, the farmers, as well as the insects and environment), and pay farm workers fair wages. Though I appreciate the freshness of local seasonal produce, I’m not that uptight over remote food production, because, all things considered, transporting produce by ship and freight is fairly efficient and the societal benefits far outweigh the negatives. Vegans are no more reliant on this global food distribution system than non-vegans (coffee, tea, rice, banana’s, oranges, we all eat this stuff).
Cost wise it’s less expensive to consume plants than exploit and consume animals, don’t let the cheap cost of nationally subsidized meat and dairy deceive you. One can bog the issue with detail, but really the basic math is easy, consume plants directly versus feed plants to animals over time and eat them receiving a fractioned percentage of the original energy put into the animal. Did primitive humankind get big brains from eating meat or is the new theory of chimps digging up carbohydrate rich tubers correct? What difference does it make? I’m not concerned about what evolutionary chance wrought thousands of years ago or about survival (as I type at my keyboard), or how I would manage on a deserted island, or what lions or chimpanzees eat, or my rank in the food chain (that agriculture renders meaningless anyway), or what my near ancestors did -- I want to thrive, today, and I can do this consuming plants and living as a vegan. With vegan athletes winning ultra-marathons and natural body-building competitions, I think I’ll be fare well enough in my otherwise mundane daily routine of going to work and trying to squeeze in some daily exercise. Looking towards the future and carefully considering the environment of a shrinking planet with finite land and resources, consuming plants in lieu of consuming animals and their by products seems like a good idea to ensure our long-term species survival and the survival and genetic diversity of a large variety of other species on this planet.
To address the slavery analogy, yes, the analogy fails when we discuss eating human slaves. But every analogy has a point of failure, as it is a comparison of two unlike situations to showcase the parallels. The importance is in the similarities, and that is where the analogy is meaningful. The degree of meaning will of course vary on a personal level. I don’t harp on it, but I do wonder whether future civilizations will judge us the way we judge our slave-owning ancestors.
If animal consumers feel antagonized by vegans bringing these issues up, pretend for a moment that you are revolted by animal exploitation (just pretend for a moment please, it won’t hurt you) and then turn on the television and count the quantity of advertisements proselytizing the consumption of animal body parts and fluids and how necessary this consumption is.
Can a vegan opt out of the tax funding (billions of dollars!) directed to the meat and dairy industries despite moral objection and the environmentally irresponsible impact of such industries? These industries even produce expensive ad campaigns at the tax-payers expense. If meat, dairy and eggs are so essential to everyone, why bother to waste tax money advertising? If the government reached into every meat-eater’s paycheck to fund PeTA’s activities, perhaps they would have more legitimate reasons to voice complaints.
Really, it would be a lot easier for vegan’s to ease up on complaining if we didn’t have to be bombarded by the domination/exploitation ideology and directly pay the government to subsidize people’s extravagant religious practice of animal sacrifices (there’s hardly much rational reason) and be left with indirect yet substantial costs of the environmental cleanup.
Nothing fries me more than Vegans and Veggies who think abortion is fine. Could there be a more hypocritical, absurd, illogical, asinine, and self serving position than a Vegan who is OK with abortion. Just don’t eat-em and it’s just fine….
Nothing fries me more than Vegans and Veggies who think abortion is fine. Could there be a more hypocritical, absurd, illogical, asinine, and self serving position than a Vegan who is OK with abortion. Just don’t eat-em and it’s just fine….
uhm.. since when is anything said between vegans/vegetarians and meatatarians interesting?
most of it's crap and worthless drivel fighting kung fu rice paper with tears in it.... now you got the grasshopper you must rock!
yeh... i'm a vegetarian (a real one who doesn't preach the gospel.. screw the gospel) and i'm sick to death of the vegetarians!
:D
especially those vegans... and meat eaters.. they're just as bad...
worthless....
now, where's the mimosa?