A Case for Vegetarian Virtue

Having been a long-time omnivore with no regrets, I wanted to address the question of animal rights and vegetarians. Don't worry, I'm not going to strip for PETA or scream obscenities at you. To me this is a philosophical, rational, moral, social, and economic issue, with important ideas to work through and understand -- that is, if you want to be able to make a fully considered decision. Most people lack interest in rational evaluations, in questioning their own beliefs, or perhaps just do not know to be interested. Well, I am telling you! :)

The past several years I have eaten vegetarian. On December 22nd, 2006 "I" had a complete revolution. It can be summed up as simple as... I became my core values, inwardly and outwardly. My inner and outer selves combined into one.

My vegetarian diet was an indirect consequence. I choose based mainly on health what to put in to my body, and that comprised of lots of fresh vegetables. Almost every "meat" I encountered was unhealthy and unnecessary.

After further research and personal reflection on my "self of unyielding core values" I decided to toss out meats for its content and nature of production. It is guided economically, unfortunately for our health and morals.

I began, for the first time with any serious effort, questioning our treatment of animals, and the effect this habit has on humanity as a whole.

Proposition: If we could replace our diets with one that did not kill any animals, why not?

Objections seem to be a) taste: I like the taste and texture of meats, b) it's healthy: the nutrition I get from meat is a part of healthy living, c) it's natural: killing other species for food is a natural process, and thus morally acceptable, especially because d) animals have no consciousness of their lives, only instinct and experience, and without consciousness they have no concept of time or wants or desires. With no desires, they are indifferent to whether or not we kill them for food.

(Are there any more objections? Other than e) eating meat is manly.)

All these problems are either inadequate or will be fixed, inevitably pushed forward by science.

Taste and Nutrition: If we could recreate not only taste and texture, but meat's nutritional content, why not make the switch? This has already been achieved. The hold up right now seems to be an economic one. But then this is only an admission that we will eventually switch, and why? Because it is the right thing to do when you have the viable choice. Most of us never realized we do have a choice, because society did not present the option. Our meat loving culture is taken for granted and not questioned, like so many questionable things.

If "economics" is the reason one still eats meat over not, then I ask if that is really an excuse of ignorance or laziness (my food expenses went down, not up) or why in ones morality money plays a more significant role than respect for life?

The day is already here where we have amazing meat substitutes (thanks to science) which are even more healthy than meat -- and this field is continually improving in cost, nutrition, and deliciousness.

The next time you go to the grocery store, purchase "Quorn" chicken and see if you even notice a difference. Or if that is not available look for "Veat" -- these two brands have done a magnificent job, and I think it is worth a taste just to appreciate how far this science has come along.

It all comes down to the concept of c) killing is natural and d)animals are indifferent. Both of which are inadequate.

Killing is Natural: Since humans have a higher awareness than animals, it is wrong to justify human behavior with animal behavior. Example: it is quite normal behavior for a female black widow to eat her male counterpart after sex, but in human behavior this would be bizarre and unthinkable. Just because an animal may kill for food, and just because we used to, does not mean that we necessarily should. This is a decision we must make in this day and age of understanding.

Animals are Indifferent: To say animals don't have feeling or consciousness is ridiculous. Even animals have a type of memory and range of feeling. For us to judge this, or any life, as insignificant because it does not equal our own is misguided. It lacks respect for experience and life. It reeks of our human arrogance... we tend to look at animals and think, "How dumb it is just sitting there doing nothing. It's not thinking at all!" But we fail to appreciate the intricities of their lives. We fail to understand they move at a completely different pace, but even if it is exponentially less than our own, it is still valuable! There is real caring and loss, struggle and joy. There is life happening!

Even if we do eat animals, doesn't it follow that if we value our own experiences and life, when we create life (that has feelings and experiences), we should value it enough to give it a pleasant experience? Our mass production of animals is negative and even abusive. If animals have any range of feeling or experience of enjoyment, it is most certainly is on the lower side. For such higher creatures of consciousness, we treat animals with indifference, even cruelty.

Do animals care? They don't seem to be revolting. If animals don't have wants they would have no response to pleasure-pain. Since they obviously do seek pleasure and avoid pain, just like humans, even if we do eat animals, should their life not be at least pleasant? If that is their only real instinctual want, is their experience not important? If animal experience is unimportant, then our experience must be justified as more than just our pleasure aim.

Do animals know enough to want? The moral dilemma is since an animal cannot decide for itself because it doesn't know enough, is it the obligation of the higher creature to decide for it with what an animal would want?

One common objection is, yes animals respond to pleasure and pain, but they do not have our upward striving for pleasure. They experience pleasure, but do not want for it. The life they lead in captivity may be less pleasurable than a life on the plains, but they do not know enough to care about that difference, or do not feel enough to have that be an important difference in their lives. They do not desire either life more.

But this view is untenable, because it assumes a human perspective is required for there to be any value. It assumes just because an animal may not appreciate in a meta-cognitive way, the distinction between a pleasurable and horrible life, that there is not a distinction. There is!

If you could live 1000 years of either agonizing pain or absolute happiness, but after each scenario lost all memory of those years, would it matter which you choose? You should still say yes, it matters, even though after losing all memory it would not. Why? Because the moment is important, regardless of what one thinks or knows about it. I like eating ice cream, even though it will soon be gone. Animals would never know to know better for themselves, but if they did, they would surely prefer a pleasurable life.

Aside from whether or not our treatment of animals is negative or positive for the animal who either does or does not care, let us simply address the concept of "taking life" -- why, ever? I can give you an infinite # of reasons why not kill, the most important one being it promotes a way of life, a kind of virtue, and respect/reverence for life that is beneficial to all who care, for all who experience life.

We have yet to realize how important and special we are as higher consciousness, and what kind of responsibility this entails. We are the only creatures capable of morality and values, of respecting and loving all life, of extending a helpful compassionate hand to all who even have any slightest experience of "LIFE" -- this magical nature of ours that we come from, that we value. We disgrace our own potential for this.

Another huge reason society eventually will be forced to curb or lessen its meat-consumption is the damage it is doing to our planet. A high percentage of global warming is due to this habit, which is not fundamental in any way, or necessary. In fact, if we replaced all the resources we use to make meat with non-meat substitutes, we could feed the entire world.

In today’s society, it really doesn’t matter. We are not ready on the whole to give up our instinctual pleasure that has bonded with meat. Our ancestral background grew up on this meat, so what right do we have against that? Well, our ancestors also violently killed each other over territory, like animal packs with our tribal groups. Should we not evolve beyond this violence? Even if it is a part of our nature, this is to say, if you believe violence is a part of our nature, it is still in our benefit and rational interest as a higher thinking species to assimilate, or transfigure this instinct into a higher one; in other words, to master it, and not let it master you.

Surely, in the end, our instinct to kill and take life away as opposed to promoting it will be replaced. We are not guided by our material, base instincts any longer. As a whole we are moved by our higher instinct: intelligence, which bred the ability to distinguish between positive and negative values and choose our own self-definition.

It seems as if this is an untimely view in this age, but that’s nothing new for me, and I think any creative soul could at least understand the prospect. I disagree with eating meat, but am not morally vivacious enough to claim immorality on anyone who does.

The truth is, it doesn't matter if you eat meat or not. You "opting out" of the system will not change it at all. The same amount of meat will be produced and consumed. Whether or not you participate is a personal moral choice, so only do what feels best.

You have a choice to 1) Enjoy the freedom the system allows you to eat meat without feeling responsible (because you aren't! It makes no difference on the whole) or 2) Enjoy the personal joy of the moral commitment not to.

That's why I love being a vegetarian, even though I know it makes no actual difference to anyone but me. That's the whole point. To develop values that center around something invisible, intangible -- these things we call principles, virtues, morality -- it exists in the mind, the thought world, and it influences every action and arouses the deepest parts of our soul.

The fundamental moral question is: What do you do when nobody is looking? When it doesn't matter either way? When you have complete and total freedom?

This is the essence of self morality. It is so invisible to people because people rarely see themselves and act on that all-important drive. When it only relates to yourself, when no one is looking but you, when nothing else changes -- if you act on this self, you have discovered virtue, character, self, and morality. Otherwise, you are just following rules.

I am not disagreeable to eating meat in the end. Just the process we currently have, for most, nearly 90% of all meat, is against my core values. On another level, my own thoughts on the morality of this as a societal physician is I see hypocrisy between thoughts and action, and thus, being and action.

Personally, I am not against death, and eating meat as a result. Even cultivating and bringing about life, for the ultimate purpose of continuing our life cycle is a natural process: but life has made it cruel and competitive, to which, we no longer have to be. If an animal's life was pleasant, such a life at all would be better than no life! But respect for our food, what a concept! Right now we are too individual, too egocentric to evolve our awareness beyond our own social programming.

The way we process animals I disagree with under the pretenses of if we were a higher species, but we have yet to grow to that level, so I excuse our ignorance as a condition, a symptom of the times, to which hopefully, our spiritual cure is on the way: spiritual as in that which links our mind and perception with everything around us, one of self-realization of ones relationships with others, the universe, and oneself, finally expressing ourselves with 100% positive actions.