When people ask me why I am vegetarian, I respond vaguely with something like "for health/environmental reasons". I know that what they are actually asking is something more akin to "Why are you being so stupid?" so I make sure I don't mention anything about morality or I'll just confirm that thought before I've been given a chance to explain myself. They don't care so I don't elaborate and we manage to get along without offending each other.
However, it is frustrating to be asked this question so regularly and not be able to give an honest answer! Like most human beings, I like to express what I believe so I will do it here. Here is why I think we have a moral compulsion to be vegetarian (and more!):
I don't believe in an objective moral standard. I think if we encountered one, nobody would care anyway. We do things that are right because we feel deep down that they are right and we feel a bit sick on the inside when we do the things we know are wrong. The problem with this subjective morality is its tendency to get manipulated by outside sources or even just our immoral desires. For example, slave owners probably didn't feel sick on the inside because they were desensitised to what they were doing.
So how can we overcome these problems? I don't know! But sometimes we can detect inconsistencies in our own beliefs that reveal to us that at least two things cannot both be morally acceptable and then it is up to us to choose which one we must give up. Had slave owners analysed more closely the differences between themselves and slaves, perhaps they would have been faced with such a choice.
On to animals then. A few years ago, a cat was found dead near my house riddled with BB pellets. I remember feeling pretty sick upon hearing about that. But the thing is, most people feel pretty sick when they hear that too. I don't have much to say to those who don't but for those who do, what you have just experienced is an unwillingness to treat non-human life as mere objects. That means that you believe that some things are off the cards when it comes to animals.
But this is where the defeasibility of our subjective morality becomes problematic. If we think its wrong to shoot cats full of pellets for our own personal pleasure but not to kill cattle for food, then we have drawn a line. There wouldn't be a problem if we just didn't care about animals at all because then we could just draw the line at "anything goes" but are bleeding hearts don't let us, unfortunately. And this new line is much harder to draw for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, we don't know enough about ourselves to know how different we are from animals. If we adopt an "anything goes" attitude and bank on the hope that such a difference is large then we could find ourselves in the same position as the slave owner. Secondly, the "anything goes" attitude is the norm... we are socialised towards it. We cannot tell how much of that attitude is a genuine moral choice and how much is mere desensitisation to immoral acts.
These concerns are not definitive. But they don't need to be. Its not like we are faced with a moral dilemma. Abortion is a moral dilemma issue because there is potential harm to be sown on both sides. But vegetarianism is all about doing the least harm. It is the safe option. If it turns out that meat eating was alright and we can do with animals as we like, then vegetarians will not have caused any harm in the mean time. The same is not true for meat-eaters. The above concerns indicate that the rational course is to tread safely until, if and when, we know more and vegetarianism is clearly the path of moral safety.
So to sum up: People appear to have conflicted reactions to animal treatment. We have no definitive answers and our subjective morality could be wrong. Thus we are in a position that could not more clearly call out for a cautious morality. Vegetarianism is a position of least potential harm and thus fits the bill completely.
Thats just my two cents. Thanks for listening and letting me get that off my chest
.
P.S. There are of course plenty of benefits for your health and the environment if you are vegetarian but I would be lying if I said I cared about them nearly as much as I do about the moral benefits.
However, it is frustrating to be asked this question so regularly and not be able to give an honest answer! Like most human beings, I like to express what I believe so I will do it here. Here is why I think we have a moral compulsion to be vegetarian (and more!):
I don't believe in an objective moral standard. I think if we encountered one, nobody would care anyway. We do things that are right because we feel deep down that they are right and we feel a bit sick on the inside when we do the things we know are wrong. The problem with this subjective morality is its tendency to get manipulated by outside sources or even just our immoral desires. For example, slave owners probably didn't feel sick on the inside because they were desensitised to what they were doing.
So how can we overcome these problems? I don't know! But sometimes we can detect inconsistencies in our own beliefs that reveal to us that at least two things cannot both be morally acceptable and then it is up to us to choose which one we must give up. Had slave owners analysed more closely the differences between themselves and slaves, perhaps they would have been faced with such a choice.
On to animals then. A few years ago, a cat was found dead near my house riddled with BB pellets. I remember feeling pretty sick upon hearing about that. But the thing is, most people feel pretty sick when they hear that too. I don't have much to say to those who don't but for those who do, what you have just experienced is an unwillingness to treat non-human life as mere objects. That means that you believe that some things are off the cards when it comes to animals.
But this is where the defeasibility of our subjective morality becomes problematic. If we think its wrong to shoot cats full of pellets for our own personal pleasure but not to kill cattle for food, then we have drawn a line. There wouldn't be a problem if we just didn't care about animals at all because then we could just draw the line at "anything goes" but are bleeding hearts don't let us, unfortunately. And this new line is much harder to draw for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, we don't know enough about ourselves to know how different we are from animals. If we adopt an "anything goes" attitude and bank on the hope that such a difference is large then we could find ourselves in the same position as the slave owner. Secondly, the "anything goes" attitude is the norm... we are socialised towards it. We cannot tell how much of that attitude is a genuine moral choice and how much is mere desensitisation to immoral acts.
These concerns are not definitive. But they don't need to be. Its not like we are faced with a moral dilemma. Abortion is a moral dilemma issue because there is potential harm to be sown on both sides. But vegetarianism is all about doing the least harm. It is the safe option. If it turns out that meat eating was alright and we can do with animals as we like, then vegetarians will not have caused any harm in the mean time. The same is not true for meat-eaters. The above concerns indicate that the rational course is to tread safely until, if and when, we know more and vegetarianism is clearly the path of moral safety.
So to sum up: People appear to have conflicted reactions to animal treatment. We have no definitive answers and our subjective morality could be wrong. Thus we are in a position that could not more clearly call out for a cautious morality. Vegetarianism is a position of least potential harm and thus fits the bill completely.
Thats just my two cents. Thanks for listening and letting me get that off my chest
.P.S. There are of course plenty of benefits for your health and the environment if you are vegetarian but I would be lying if I said I cared about them nearly as much as I do about the moral benefits.
