Another installment in the Great Vegetarian/Alien-Eating Debate 2004. Odalisk has posted a summary here, and elgan added a comment as well. Both reminded me of something I had been thinking about after I posted my contribution to the dialogue, namely that I am truly hypocritical about the whole affair. I mentioned that I choose not to eat things that I don�t think I could kill and prepare myself. On that basis, I feel okay about eating fish occasionally, as I�ve actually caught a fish, cleaned it and cooked it and while I wouldn�t exactly say the task was pleasant, I also wasn�t completely horrified by the experience. One of the things that bothers me greatly about our consumption here in the U.S. and in first world nations in general is that most of our consumer goods are so processed that we�ve completely lost sight of any environmental impact (and I don�t just mean that in the sense of ecology but in the more general sense) of our consumption. I am hypocritical, though, because I still wear leather. I guess there�s something about the durability of leather that makes me feel less squeamish about buying a pair of leather shoes than eating a steak. My pair of leather shoes will last me for years and years. The steak will not.

I also realize that my decisions in this area are really fairly arbitrary and represent not-terribly-well reasoned rationalizations in an attempt to allow me to feel okay about the way I live my life. We humans are complex creatures. We demand our creature comforts but want to feel okay about them.

Vegans are the only vegetarians that really make sense to me, because if you really feel that strongly about animal welfare, then why wouldn�t you go all the way. But I am not a vegan. I am not terribly extreme on most of my positions. While I have some strongly-held political beliefs, in general my overall philosophy of peaceful coexistence wins out every time. And in some areas, my sense of justice and my sense of people�s rights to live according to the rules important to them (providing those rules don�t jeopardize the health and welfare of others) collide violently.

In the case of vegetarians, the importance of the collision is diffused by the fact that people are vegetarians for many different reasons: health, ethics, personal conduct (under which category I include myself).

The area where I feel the collision most, however, is the abortion question. For many years I have not only believed women have the right to an abortion, but have actually spent some time being active in voicing that opinion, participating in several national organizations both as a donor and volunteer to secure that right. However, I can also see the other side of this debate very clearly. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then of course it is your ethical responsibility to do everything within your power to ensure that abortions do not take place. I don�t believe that it is possible for pro-choicers and pro-lifers to coexist peacefully, because the philosophies are totally mutually exclusive. This isn�t an area where personal conduct is the issue. I can choose to have an abortion or not to, but the important question is what is right or wrong. I don�t feel like there�s a grey area. You either believe abortion wrongfully takes a life or you don't. The only gray area is what actually constitutes life and this is a question that is unlikely to be resolved, due to its extreme complexity. Ultimately I will make my choices based on my personal welfare, regardless of the feelings of those with opposing opinions, which doesn�t seem very civilized and definitely doesn�t fit in with my overriding �live and let live� policy.

A little unedited random philosophizing for a Tuesday morning. I hope to post again later, but first I need to do a little work!

0 people said it like they meant it