(ahem)

well, i think i'd like to start bloggin' around again. let this be a good start. i plan on generally documenting my experiences with food, with a touch of graduate school and a full time line cook position at a popular diner.

Theistic Vegetarianism?

http://ncrcafe.org/node/933

This is, oddly enough, an article from the National Catholic Reader. Sorry for all of the PETA stuff lately. . .

Anyway, it seems that a monastery was found to be running a factory farm style egg factory and PETA addressed the situation from a theistic perspective. I found this angle to be especially interesting...it's one I've never heard argued. Yet it seems that it could be a persuasive argument for many Americans, considering how increasingly devout the nation seems to be becoming.

Perhaps the more extremist Christians (the born-agains, fundamentalists, evangelicals) might disregard a plea for animal rights (or at least less cruelty) considering the earth is a temporal place. In waiting for the Rapture or the final judgement, animals are second-class citizens, not to be sublimely transported to heaven during the final days. Therefore, their lives pre-apocalypse, is not morally considered.

But for most other Christians, it seems that the words of the Bible are convincing enough. Being the Word of God, people may be/are compelled to live each passage as closely as possible, even the parts that contradict each other.

Therefore, an excerpts like Lev. 27:26, "26: "But a firstling of animals, which as a firstling belongs to the LORD, no man may dedicate; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD's," might make a believer feel obligated to treat an animal with respect and consideration, as a work of God's.

This isn't to say that the Theistic argument would create holy vegetarians. . .Ezekiel 29:5 "And I will cast you forth into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your streams; you shall fall upon the open field, and not be gathered and buried. To the beasts of the earth and to the birds of the air, I have given you as food."

But if religious people read their tomes with a more sympathetic eye (mind, heart), then perhaps they would be able to approach animal suffering as important and the creatures themselves as God's creations, to be considered with a certain degree of reverence.

What's in a Name?

Again, searching material on Peta.org, I noticed they have been on a crusade since 2003 to change the name of the town Rodeo, California because of the way it conjures up images of violence and animal cruelty. Apparently they offered the town $20,000 in veggie burgers for the schools in exchange for the name change (by the way, the name would have changed to 'Unity').

This response: http://www.songbites.com/observations/10292003.html
is a humorous reaction to the exchange, though I disagree with some of his points.

I suppose I'm mostly bothered by two of his claims, the first being: "While I do enjoy a good hamburger as much as the next guy, I admit that there are some inhumane people out there." I still find it difficult to encounter "self-aware omnivores," where an individual both savors the taste of meat, but admires the actions and motivation of the veggie activists.

And the second: "Unfortunately for [PETA], they failed to make an impact with the people of Rodeo." Although the town declined the name change offer, the event has absolutely made an impact on the Rodeo, CA community and anyone else who encountered the story. This little moment in time made people at least consider the violence and abuse of Rodeos. Often enough, a person is only 'set in their ways' until those 'ways' are challenged. And sometimes challenges happen late in life, or worse, never at all. Meeting an opposing viewpoint can inspire introspection and reestablish values and beliefs. Thus the townspeople can't help but consider the implications of the name Rodeo.

Seal Hunting

I've been reading up a bit on the whole industry of seal hunting, and commercial hunting in general. A PETA blurb (http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp) mentions that the US baned seal fur in the 1970s. This ban is incredibly biased, giving no attention to the other fur animals that are used purely for industry. I suppose the major difference between a seal hunt and factory farming is that we at least pretend that we can't see inside the farms.

The reaction to seal hunting is initially emotional, and for many this sensation is strong enough to be turned into a conviction. But if people were confronted by the grotesque rituals of industrial farming, there would perhaps be similar outrage. Seals, especially baby seals, are maybe considered more cute than cows. In addition, violent footage of seal hunting focuses on the younger seals, defining the event as one that victimizes the small, helpless, and adorable. This concept seems to transfer to the common response to veal. In my experience, those who refuse to eat veal do not necessarily deny themselves beef.

Some of the defense arguments for industrial farming include the necessity for population control. This seems reasonable enough...It's possible that in some cases areas without hunting may lead to animal populations going unchecked and growing to quickly. But this is, of course, due to the imbalance humans inadvertently created when settling. The "Elk problem" currently in Colorado is largely fueled by low wolf populations...which is in turn fueled by over-killing to protect livestock. But in regards to harp seals, for instance, the hunt allows the Atlantic cod numbers to be high enough for successful commercial fishing.

The laws of the Canadian seal hunt indicate that the animals must be killed as humanely as possible. There are age limits imposed and licenses are distributed for the event. But regardless of whatever rules are determined, there will always be people to break them. And in such circumstances, 'breaking the rules' equates to immeasurable animal suffering. I was also suprised by how few licenses for indiginous people were distributed when compared to the numbers for general industrial hunting (10,000 versus roughly 150,000). Not that I think the numbers should be increased to equalize the injustice to Amarinds, but the figures seem imbalanced. At very least, the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression may be (very, very, very) slightly recognized by allowing indiginous ppl. to hunt as they have historically. Yet even granting indiginous people the right to hunt certain animals does not conditionally guarantee the methods will be as humane or respectful as tradition grants.

Industrial hunting is free-range industrial farming. The only 'improvement' is that hypothetically the animal was able to live a natural life prior to being killed, except for the seal cubs, of course.


(o, and my sources are the various linked official reports from the wikipedia.org article on seal hunting...)

morally permissible?

to what degree is it morally permissible for a person to continue to eat meat, while still being enlightened to the factory farming (and other reasons to cease/limit meat consumption)?

Are there degrees of moral permissibility? Is it just what a person can overlook in their day-to-day life?

I can understand hypocrisy, I see it, I partake in it. It's almost unavoidable to have one's values clash with one's actions. Yet I've never encountered a pro-meat argument that was ever founded on anything stronger than the aesthetics of the product. I can't think of any circumstance that would articulate when aesthetics may out way suffering. Maybe moral permissibility is more subjective, like: I may not consider someone else's dietary hypocrisy morally permissible, but as far as they're concerned (and the majority of Western culture) they're absolutely permissible, no question. The way its done is the way its done. Since the morality of industrial farming is overlooked by the greater percentage of people, morality in the cultural sense (concerning the farming only) is defined to overlook the offence.

The Lifeboat Dilemma

I've been considering the "Lifeboat dilemma" for a while now, and it seems I'm reaching an understanding (or a wisp of one?). Singer denounces the the problem, deeming it "bizarre," and thus impractical. And while the literal situation is an unrealistic and improbable one, there is great value in its consideration. In fact, the though process should be the highlight and the focus of the problem, not whether it has literal practical implications. The practical application of the problem lies in our determining of our values, how and what we value, and why. Such details can often be overlooked in a thoughtlessly moralizing culture. Problems like the lifeboat dilemma can offer individuals a renewed perspective on their world, their relationships, and the importance of their various exchanges throughout.

More animal rights stuff. Because it is important.

In response to an online blog firestorm on LiveJournal--here's the original:

It's funny how all the naysaying posts are actually ignoring the main point that Jonah is trying to get across. In fact Mr. Quinn you're enforcing what he started to say: Extremist of any variety are absurd. Here you are becoming insulted by what ever facts are presented and are looking for a fight.

Killing animals leads us to ignore human suffering? Please show me proof of that. Last I looked the media is causing that, not my Big Mac.

(In all reality I find vegetarianism a lame way out. For people who care so much about animal suffering and rights that they only stop eating them, not cutting them out of their lifestyle totally. You're weekend warriors. Vegans get the props...they dont pussy out on supporting what they believe in)

Annnnd my word-age:

Jonah's editorial (#1)
"The people who I find to be the silliest right now - and trust me, it's a long list - are the animal rights activists. Can I just say that first off, the very idea of their position, animal rights, is preposterous.
If animals have rights, which are what these bored and overly politically correct people are fighting for, then could my pets sue me?"

I would say that Jonah does not make is clear enough that he is only attacking the 'extremists.' Certainly he references PETA as being libelous (to steve irwin) and not to be taken seriously (for the rest of us). And his argument is entirely founded in the 'extremist' problem. Yet in this editorial, he never distinguished from the psychos and the 'normal' veg*ns, and here is his most offensive error. The term he uses is "animal rights activists" but he irrefutably connects this term with PETA and the likes of extremism. I, myself, am a vegetarian, and I would consider myself an animal rights activist. I do not participate in picketing, or spray-paint people in fur coats, but I am an activist in a very important way. My eating habits are my activist, they represent my values and beliefs. Not only that, but in selectively NOT participating in industrial farming, I am perpetually voting against this system. Everyday I say "No" to these animal abuses, and I do so conscientiously. The world does not accommodate me. I'm not complaining, but my efforts to find veggie friendly places only helps to reinforce my beliefs and subsequent actions because I am confronted with the "why" of my choices very frequently.

Now in Jonah's second editorial (2/15) I'll grant that he does 'clarify' his angle. He specifies,

"I'm not attacking anyone but the extremists, because most vegetarians thankfully aren't quite as silly as their quirky neighbors."

But the values and actions he is attacking here (unlike the extremist 'terrorism' he cites in the first editorial) are the foundations of the animal rights movement and veg*nism in the first place. That IS offensive. I am a 'mainstream' vegetarian. I am offended. I feel that Jonah probably inserted this disclaimer to placate his friends (myself being one of them! I have no problem with jonah At All. It's just an intellectual argument for me, at least)

He claims that extremest vegetarians (here melded with animal rights activists?) promote themselves as "dignified and altruistic because they are healthier, happier, and guiltless." I find this point of argument to be 1. a blanket statement, 2. unfounded--sources? Direct quotes? Or perhaps a national survey of these people to get a percentage census on their agenda. If these defending sources that I'm requesting do not exist, then you need to rethink the original statements and how one validates them, right?

The difference between a vegetarian purporting that the 'natural order' of man is to progress towards a meat-free diet is preposterous. We have residual canine teeth, yes Jonah. We also have molars, ideal for plant foods. We are an omnivorous species, starting with scavenging marrow from carcases, to developing tools for hunting, to cultivating crops and agriculture.

If we are to believe, however, that humans are the superior beings of the Earth, that we are the most sentient and reasoning, then it is perhaps our responsibility to consider our actions more thoroughly than a wolf would when attacking a doe. We have the ability to be self-reflective, and better yet--self-actualizing! If science tells us that we, as humans, are capable of living a healthy, well-sustained life without meat in our diet (or better yet, no animal products at all), in addition to our knowledge that industrial farming is an enormous source of suffering in the country, for both animals and humans alike, then shouldn't we be able to make conscientious decisions and consume thoughtfully?

And using the economy to defend the meat industry? Especially when not citing government reports, but Beef Industry lobbyist studies, is just poor researching. Change is difficult because people resist it because they think it is difficult. Read that one twice, it makes sense...Anyway, how about a witty suggestion for how we may recover from the economic hit of the fall of the meat industry: give those people jobs in the green revolution industries! Let's invest more in green energy, cars, wind-power, solar-power. There are jobs of every level in those fields.

And I especially felt it unfounded to compare the Inuit lifestyle and dietary habits to our own. It's absurd to make this connection because most indigenous people did/do eat meat, but they hunt, and hunting is inherently different from the industrial farming we encounter every day in the US. 1. The animal most likely was able to have lived a normal/natural life until killed. 2. In indigenous societies, often there is a sense of reverence and respect for the creature: an understanding that one life is lost to give life to another. I'm not saying we should be new-age hippies and develop a religion around this, but it's the absence of this respect that allows the violence of factory farming to occur. In addition, in the indigenous world, the whole animal is used purposely. Skin becomes clothing or blankets or shelter, bones can be used for tools, weapons, or jewelry, and everything else can be eaten. I suppose industrial farming has its own unique form of this recycling, but it involves feeding dead animals to their compatriots. And animals eating each other (especially the same species) is a timebomb. Think about the causes of the animal's death, and then consider how reasonable it is to feed that creature to others.

And finally (i hope), I'd like to address the reference to the claim that war is a condition of a meat eating society, and that vegetarianism would magically create peace. In my re-reading of each editorial and each response letter, I have not come across any direct statement that meat-eating=war. This claim was never made. The Beacon online has a comment from Professor David Johnson quoting Leo Tolstoy, "So long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields." Yet neither Mr. Quinn nor Mr. Bourgeois specifically argue this themselves.

In the Livejournal discourse, you'll see that Quinn mentioned this:

"Much of this corn is grown with synthetic fertilizer and pesticides and is produced in a petroleum-intensive manner, with some estimates claiming that every bushel of corn produced uses half a gallon of petroleum. This reliance on petroleum for cattle feed makes all government actions to gain control of petroleum, for instance the war in Iraq, indirect (admittedly very indirect) subsidies to industrial agriculture." He is merely responding to Jonah's editorial, the one that uses the US economy to defend itself, by limiting his letter to points refuted in the editorial. It isn't even the main focus of his point.

Also, there is a correlation between being insensitive to animal suffering and being insensitive to human suffering. I don't believe "ignoring" is a proper word for this perspective. I'll use an accessible example for this, citing Quinn's previous point: "I agree, animals don't have the same rights. But it's still wrong to kick a dog." Animal cruelty, from children, is seen as a warning sign, through the MacDonald Triad. Animal Cruelty is often an indicator of violent, antisocial behavior. Studies have also shown that these children are statistically more likely to grow to be violent criminals. So here we find an interesting connection between animal abuse and human abuse. Granted there are often psychological problems with the actors, but this is small-scale stuff. If we widen our lens to see the suffering inflicted on millions of animals (and people) every day, suffering that is institutionalized, and don't do anything about it (and we don't all have the excuse of psychological derangement) then what kinds of people are we?



-----------------


also, aside from these words, I'd like to just say how thankful I am for Ryan's efforts in this debate. I feel like I personally do not have the skills in logic/ethics/philosophy, nor the time, to really argue each of these editorials fully. He's fighting the good fight, indeed.

and how about a picture of a kitten romping in a field, to cleanse our mental palates for the day?

Beacon Editorials (ok, I just noticed that almost everyone is reacting to these...)

I do hope everyone in this class has been keeping up with the Beacon editorials these past few prints. To summarize for those who haven't, a few weeks ago a very ill-informed individual composed a lengthy, inflammatory piece that "humorously" attacked animal rights activists and those that follow a veg*n diet. The responses were articulate, based in ethics and logic and common sense reasoning (Teddy B's, of this E&A class, was commendable).

The third installation of this exchange reflects the affect the response letters had on the original author. The person who penned the initial editorial was forced to consider the details that "legitimize" his position on animal rights. His writing showed actual research (with numbers an' figures an' everythin') and consideration for his opinion. I'm glad someone made him think. The newest piece weakly uses, of all things, the U.S. economy to defend us eating animals.

I think the argument that the various meat industries are such substantial contributors to the economy is bogus and flawed. I can see connections between perpetuating the "need" for the meat industry for economic reasons and that of the world's dependency on fossil fuels. I suppose change will come in the form of a disaster, natural or otherwise. Oddly enough, fossil fuel and the meat industry are tied together in other ways. With environmental damage from the meat industry, the "meat industry" part is ignored and our attention goes to the damage incurred. The eco revolution is fighting the end-product, the polution and damage, and not fully focusing in on all contributors. We will never be successful if we can't fight the source of the problems! Maybe that's too tangential of an argument...

I am most concerned that this individual represents the masses. My worry is not even (entirely) rooted in animal consumption, but rather in unconscientious consumption. Thoughtless consumption qualifies as a pandemic, victimizing all Earth species. Sweatshops thrive, slash&burn agriculture is prevalent, and factory farm food is in our homes. The interconnectedness of these issues is undenyable, but apparently overlook-able.

Aliens...and Moral Valuing

Silliman's book seems to rely heavily on biology as
the solid backing, the facts, for his explored theories.
The discoursing pair touch upon the brain and
nervous system as being the points of reference when
noting non-human animals as being valuers and valued
beings in the incremental system. While I don't believe
that our Earthly knowledge has found conclusively
whether plant life is very sentient, or can feel pain (how
I cringe at that anti-vegetarian argument about a plant's
sense of pain), I find this focus on the brain to be limiting.

Not to totally jump into hypotheticals here, but I
would like to speculate that there is potential for
life in this universe, outside of what we know on Earth.
And as this hypothesis is somewhat of a likelihood,
it is important to recognize that different conditions
yield different bio-developments. What the brain
looks like, and functions as, on Earth may manifest
itself entirely differently in other beings.

Taking a wider look at the various ways life
(with greater levels of sentience) can develop is important
in that it gives us a more balanced perspective on the
life-as-we-know-it details on Earth.

If one can agree that different life-forms may have
different biological makeup, the they must (should) concede
that their point of agreement also submits that
other life-forms on Earth may follow this same trend.

Natural Centrism

In reading through Silliman's book, I am inclined to consider the
various perspectives of sentient and non-sentient non-human
animals being discussed.

(To me) the fatal flaw of many moral value theories is that they
are homocentric. But this notion drew me to consider the other
centrisms throughout the animal kingdom. Are not lions entirely
lion-centric? And this example can be thrown at nearly any
social animal group in the expanse of the earth. Silliman's book
even cites further examples (the vampire bats) of this system
that emphasises the importance of the particular species survival.

While we've covered that the level of sentience found in most other
animals does not lead us to believe that they have developed
theories to be centric about, but in their natural habits, they
display an unconscious (perhaps) theory that values their united
survival as of the most importance.

So I suppose we cannot, as a centric species, be condemned
for our theory developing. But as (possibly) the most sentient beings,
on Earth at least, we must to be held responsible for how we use
that sentience. And mis-using and exploiting other non-human
animals and natural resources is a shameful waste of high-level
sentience.