My first reason has to do with health. Now, I realize that many people believe that meat is bad for your health. Causes cancer, or raises your risk of heart disease, or other nonsense. I call it “nonsense” because I am fairly sure, based on the data available, that meat alone will not cause these things. I believe – and you might say that I am using myself as a living experiment to test this hypothesis, although I am woefully inadequate as a range of test subjects – that the problem is caused by the amount of refined sugar and other processed foods that have been introduced into our diets recently.

There are more immediate health issues, too. My digestive system is not equipped to live on nothing but plants, beans or otherwise. Whereas some of the individuals here – Hemant being the most notable example – come from groups with a lengthy history of low-meat diets, my ancestors grew up in a somewhat different part of the world; there, meat was plentiful and plants rather scarce. Evolution, which also gave me the fair skin and blonde hair that was advantageous to the climate, has equipped my body to work with a similar diet.

There is, of course, the moral argument. Unfortunately, animal use is a huge moral gray area; lines are as arbitrary as the individual chooses to draw them. It is true that, if I think about it, I don’t really care for the idea of consuming my fellow animal. Nor do I care for the idea of killing hundreds of innocent arthropods to protect my vegetable garden, or killing the hundreds of innocent plants that I eat in a year. True, they are not sentient, but they are still a form of life, and it bothers me.

Unfortunately, that is the way things work. I cannot prolong my own life except by taking it from others. This is not a human-exclusive trait; every living being, short of the most primitive sun-fueled beasties, is wired to do the same. Whether I like it or not, I am no different from the lifeforms that surrounds me; my very existence necessitates another being’s death.

To that end, I take pains to ensure that the death I cause is as responsible and painless as I am able. For instance, I can minimize the suffering experienced by an animal I eat by killing it at once and then eating it afterward. (I have never seen anyone extend the same courtesy to plants; even I have had no qualms digging my teeth into a whole carrot or hacking apart an onion that has started to sprout in the fridge.) I can minimize the environmental impact by choosing certain kinds of meat or by getting it from certain sources. (For instance, the beef now in our freezer is post-industrial waste — it came from a pair of dairy cows who died before their time. While it is not ideal, it saves resources that would otherwise be used to grow two beef-only cows.)

The last thing I would like to cover is the bit that squicks out many people: the fact that, as you are sinking your teeth into this wonderful juicy hamburger, you are feasting on the remains of something that was once a live, mooing animal. I am thoroughly aware of this, and it does not bother me. I have seen the meat in many different phases, from live cow to skinned carcass to meat slab to ground hamburger – in fact, I was personally responsible for chopping that meat for grinding – and not once did it make the meat less appetizing. I am repulsed by neither the look nor the smell of raw meat (though the feel leaves a little to be desired), and it does not shake my psyche to associate it with the animal.

When you get down to it, the issue of what you should eat comes down to two opposing philosophies: the Golden Rule and the Law of the Jungle. In my experience, the Golden Rule is best applied in the way it was intended: in situations where a benefit, or at least a lack of detriment, can be derived. I care for the Earth because it supports me, I care for anything that I am raising for food because it will provide me better food, and I try to minimize extraneous suffering because it is pointless and weighs on the conscience. I will, however, not allow my emotions to overrule my dietary needs.

Randy said,

March 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm

“What? Animals have no rights?”What?

No, not the rights your typical AR is trying to give them. Humane yes, if they are needed for research or farmed they should be treated as humainly as possible.

Animal research is not needed. Even Jane Goodall opposes this, esp because it is not humane.

Randy said,

March 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

You guys are slipping, almost 2 hours for a very perdictable and worthless response. If you REALLY need to ask that you may fall in that category I’m afraid to say.

Like we sit at the computer all day? Please! I do have a life.

“The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.”
–Carl Cohen, New England Journal of Medicine, October 1986

to parody Mriana to make a point…

“What? The severely mentally disabled have no rights?”

http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Alternative-Guide-Healthful-Humane/ dp/0878572279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205518452&sr=1-1

(Sorry about the length; you might want to copy and paste it or just look up the book at Amazon yourself.)

This book discusses ALL aspects of vegetarianism, so if you’re only interested in the ethical part, you should read the Introduction and then skip ahead to Chapters 7, 9, 10 and 11. Especially Chapter 10.

No, not the rights your typical AR is trying to give them. Humane yes, if they are needed for research or farmed they should be treated as humainly as possible.

“The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.”
–Carl Cohen, New England Journal of Medicine, October 1986

Enough said.

praying at the alter of animal rights.

That sounds like an interesting ritual. What kind of praying is it? Do they sacrifice animals on the alter? Oh wait…

Another false religion.

Funny, I know some Christian vegans and animal rights activists. How many religions can a person have?

Randy said,

March 14, 2008 at 8:17 am

Interesting that so many proclaimed atheists are praying at the alter of animal rights. Another false religion. Pretty funny and sad at the same time.

What? Animals have no rights?

Stephanie said,

March 14, 2008 at 7:42 am

Actually, I believe I did originally say; ” While Genesis specifically advocates vegetarianism, it also grants ‘dominion’ over all other animals.”

So I can interpret the text pretty accurately too, I just don’t abide by the Bible or any other religious doctrine.

I thought you were saying it says they are for human consumption, which isn’t quite what that says. Guess I miss understood what you were saying.

So I can interpret the text pretty accurately too, I just don’t abide by the Bible or any other religious doctrine. I have no issues with other’s diet choices but I’ve just seen too may ex-vegetarians come back to eating meat after ten or fifteen years because of health problems to quit eating it myself. Subjective empirical evidence, to be sure. But it’s made enough of an impression for me.