<p>Wow, I posted way back on page one of this thread, and it's really taken off since then. Anyway, the major statistics on vegetarian/veganism have already been presented, debated on, etc. I just wanted to toss in my ethical viewpoint here. Make of it what you will.</p>
<p>For those of you who know ethics, I'm sure you're familiar with the moral theory of utilitarianism. Basically, what it boils down to is this- what's morally right is what results in the best outcome for all involved. A lot of people subscribe to this theory, and not without reason. It's thought based, but it's also fairly instinctual. For the most part in our lives, we strive to do things that will make us and those around us most satisfied, right? Well that's utilitarianism at its very core.</p>
<p>Now, utility theory also provides a very strong basis for arguing the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism, provided you consider the interests of animals as well as people when deciding how to actualize the greatest good. Think about it this way- when it comes to my eating meat, there are two interested parties- me and the animal. My interest is in satisfying a craving; the animal's is in survival. Now, to me, the choice here is clear cut. His interest, being more dire and impacting, is more important. I give up only something small by not eating meat, and because of it the animal is spared a much larger hurt. </p>
<p>I realize that this is all an idealistic way of looking at the situation. You could easily argue that just because I don't eat the animal doesn't mean someone else won't. That's true. But if you're going to change people's minds, you have to start with yourself. Gandhi said you must be the change you wish to see in the world. I really think that's true. Maybe one person can't do a lot alone, but an idea can. You don't have to look far in history to see that.</p>
<p>I take a lot of crap for being a vegan, and some people think it's rather absurd, but I know very few of them who've taken the time to actually think it over. As I said in my first post (way back on page one:)), just saying it's "natural" to eat meat means nothing to me ethically. Neither does the argument "people are more important than animals," or any variation thereof. </p>
<p>What I'm wondering is, what makes us inherently more important than other animals? If you put aside those who would argue religiously about the soul and the afterlife and all that (those people are really impossible to argue with anyway- they always have god on their side, lol), most would say it's reason. Humans think and act on a higher level than animals. In many cases this is true, but there are flaws in that way of thinking. First of all, if we're going to pick a certain level of reasoning ability at which to draw the line of who "matters" ethically, we're going to end up including some animals with high cognative abilities (monkeys, dolphins, etc) and excluding members of our own species who do not have these same threshholds of thought (the very young, the mentally disabled, the senile). So that kind of division doesn't really work out, logically. </p>
<p>What I'm trying to say is that saying we're more important because of our species is pretty random. In the 1500s the conquerors of the Americas decided the interests of native Americans were less important than their own, so they were justified in killing them and taking their land. Less than 200 years ago in this country we enslaved black Americans because we had the notion that they were inferior to us. How outdated do those views look now? Arbitrary divisions of who matters and who doesn't get us nowhere. All I'm arguing for is that we stop drawing this line at species. There is nothing inherent to our species that makes us more worthy of consideration than animals. </p>
<p>Now, before you go jumping down my throat about how i'm saying it's always just as bad to kill a cow as a human being, let me just say something. All I'm arguing for is that animals be given EQUAL consideration. That does not mean MORE consideration than humans.</p>
<p>And there are cases where human interest trumps animal interest, certainly. Feed starving africans meat or let them die so animals may live? definitely feed the people. But the logic behind that is not "because they're human, so they're more important." It's that when you weigh the interests of both parties equally, the people's interests are more substantial. their deaths will probably cause greater suffering to those around them (friends, family, etc). they might leave behind jobs that need to be filled. in general, their deaths will probably be more disruptive to the world around them than the deaths of the animals they could eat to survive. </p>
<p>But as for me, I live in America. I don't need to eat meat, and I don't want to. I have no interest in supporting an industry that exploits its workers so awfully and treats animals so cruelly. It's really as simple as that. </p>
<p>p.s. sorry, I didn't mean for that to come out quite so long. lol.</p>