You would think that a company whose motto is "Don't be evil" could produce a
cookbook that didn't use foie gras twice on a slim 43 pages. I don't think less of people who eat meat--I recognize that they're simply making a different moral judgement than I do. But I draw the line at gavage, which, like bullfighting, seems to me to be purely unnecessary cruelty.
I don't think less of people who eat meat--I recognize that they're simply making a different moral judgment than I do.
I don't understand this statement. It seems to me that moral judgments are pretty important; if you think eating meat is immoral, I don't see how it's possible to NOT think less of a person for being a carnivore.
The only choices seems to be that you either don't think MUCH less of a person for eating meat, or you think eating meat is a morally neutral position, or you don't care about morality.
Well, Takoma Park is there for you.
All joking aside, you do see, don't you, how people can be irritated by this kind of public judgment?
I realize you can take refuge in the default "I'm-just-passing-judgment-not-interfering-with-your-life" dodge, but once you cast other people's dietary choices as a matter of right or wrong, the urge to regulate them cannot be far behind. Even if you're using the term frivolously, "evil" is a strong word.
Oh, and for the record - I LIKE foie gras. The Fresh Fields on 14th & P has pretty good cheap stuff - not like that upscale liverwurst SOME grocery stores try to give you.
We always like to clarify that the motto is "Don't be evil," NOT "Don't *do* evil."
This is one of those times (and there are, frankly, many of them) where being polite has trumped being logically consistent, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
The most common example I can think of is proselytizing or missionaries. Most people I know take the stance "it's okay for that guy over there to be extremely religious, just so long as he doesn't force his beliefs on me."
But if you take a moment to put yourself in the head of the missionary... Imagine you truly do believe in hell - the worst torture imaginable for eternity. And you truly believe that anyone not "saved" by your religion is going there. What kind of self-absorbed sociopath would you have to be NOT to preach the word to everyone who will listen?
That's the logically consistent position. "I believe not being saved means going to hell" + "I am considerate towards others and don't want them to suffer" = "I should try to save their souls by preaching the word"
But I'd much rather hang around a "polite" believer, who keeps their faith to themselves, than a "logically consistent" one. Ditto with vegans. If one of them says "oh, this is my moral choice, but I have no problem with you eating meat", then I think "well, good" is a better response than "you are advocating a contradictory position"
Have you seen gavage performed? (Tony Bourdain visited a French goose farm on one of his shows.) I see little cruelty, especially relative to other forms of animal treatment. It's just an easy issue to feel superior about since so few people actually eat foie gras.
I'm with Astra. The birds excitedly run to the food when it is offered.
Just because something would be unpleasent if it were done to people (like sticking a feeding tube down their throats) doesn't mean that it is wrong to do it to animals. The argument has to be more sophisticated than that to have moral bite.
My understanding is that the geese enjoy the entire process.
Geoff -
I agree with your assessment on religion (Christianity at least). I, too, find being preached at annoying, but I don't really find it rude or insulting (though, once I've said I don't, actually, want to have a conversation about Jesus, persistence is rude). I think it's nice to see people showing concern for one another's well-being, even if that concern is about the wrath of one's imaginary friends. Much nicer than people honking and copping attitude at each other, in any event.
I also agree that believing in sectarian-only salvation is logically inconsistent with non-proselytizing. However, I think there are some reasons reasons believers don't proselytize other than hypocricy. The Crusades and Inquisition, for starters. People tend to conflate conversion by force with conversion by conviction. Also related to the whole "free will" thing is the fact that, in most of the west, it is pretty much impossible that someone hasn't heard the good news that Jesus loves them, so any failure to convert can reasonably be assumed to be informed and voluntary.
And there is the old rule that it isn't polite to discuss religion, money or sex. (As everyone snorts "yeah, right.") But for religion what that really meant was that your (or my) personal beliefs aren't an appropriate topic of social conversation, because they tend to raise strong feelings and that makes for bad (or at least one sided) conversation. At best it just cows polite disbelievers into uncomfortable, bland half smiles. The rule's almost a corollary of the prohibition against being a boorish conversation hog. But it was never meant to stop missionary work (which, like any other business, isn't properly conducted at social events) or even impersonal discussions about the difficulties of trinitarian theory or the like.
Kathryn,
I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but just like my distinction, you're talking about "polite" and "rude".
There are obviously times where rules of politeness (don't shove someone) are suspended for graver situations (guy trying to shoot my wife can be shoved, hard).
My point is that if someone truly believes that their "rude" insistence could even possibly result in sparing someone horrible agony, it seems just as silly to let "it's impolite to argue about religion" stop you as it does to let "don't shove" stop you from saving a person from gunshot.
But I'd still rather be around the people who don't think that through, and prefer their good manners to logical consistency.
Similarly, while I agree with Independent George's diagnosis that Megan's position is inconsistent, I think that inconsistency is perfectly healthy, and to be encouraged as preferable to open condemnation or hostility.
Sorry about the geese, but geese are exceedingly stupid, and mean as rats. I have no sympathy. And foie gras is exceedingly delicious. Tastier from ducks IMHO, but reasonable people can differ on that one.
I don't mind if people advocate banning foie gras, any more than I mind if they advocate socialism or cross-dressing. I've got silly hobbies myself. But let's not pretend that banning foie gras differs in any way from the Taliban blowing up the statues at Bamiyan: You're destroying one of the great achievements of human civilization just so you can feel smug about how "moral" you are. That's a poor kind of "morality", if you ask me.
Y'know, a goose bit my sister once... No, it's actually true. She's a vegetarian now. Somewhere, one of those rotten feathered vermin is laughing.
Megan, have you seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8
I'm a total animal-welfare symp, but when I looked into foie gras I came away conflicted: it seems to be fact that waterfowl lack the mammalian gag reflex, so the feeding tube may not be tortuous to them. Some gavage production does involve close confinement for the last weeks of the birds' lives, though, so you'll feel about it the way you will about CAFOs and battery cages. But that's a separate issue from the feeding tube.
Note that the Spanish have come up with gavage-free foie gras recently too.
But I draw the line at gavage, which, like bullfighting, seems to me to be purely unnecessary cruelty.
I don't understand this. Gavage is completely necessary to the production of fois gras. They just don't get fat enough, otherwise.
"Don't be evil" is not the same statement as "Don't indirectly support things that Megan thinks are evil".
Perhaps the people at Google simply don't share this moral judgment that foie grasor its production are evil?
(It seems odd that you'd imply that so very strongly, given your immediately later post about how food choices you strongly disagree with don't cause you to feel a person's bad.
I mean, someone who cooks a factory farmed chicken is arguably doing more "evil" to animals, if we assume, arguendo, that gavage even harms the geese, than someone who cooks with or eats foie gras every few months - but I bet that Google's cookbook doesn't say "only buy free range chickens or the recipes won't work!".)