Re: Skyla's Response #10

In Skyla's response to Kelsey, she talks about how eating meat is unnecessary. She ends with the question: "Even after knowing the affects eating factory farmed meat have on the environment and the animals, why do some people still continue to eat meat other than the reason that it simply tastes good?"

The main reason, like I've argued before is conformity. The quote from James Rachels that Skyla posted on her blog supports this notion. He states, "People generally do not respond to ethical appeals unless they see others around them also responding. If all your friends are eating meat, you are unlikely to be moved my a mere argument."

Conformity is an unconscious common sense drive which consumes every person and various other species. The psychology behind it narrows down to our need to belong and our need to be liked. People like people who agree with them, and have a lot in common with them because it affirms who they are. Similarities cause us to assimilate ourselves in an unconscious fashion. If someone decides to be a vegetarian, their friends and family may try to convince them to do other wise. The peer-pressure to continue to eat meat from several friends has a much more significant effect on ones decision than the moral dilemma at hand. The dilemma now becomes the internal battle of wanting to agree with your personal friends and your morals. Yes, just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right, but it makes it seem that way. I know plenty of people who only became vegetarians when they came to college because they didn't feel the pressure of having to consume meat anymore.

Religion is another argument. If your religion justifies eating meat I feel like that is a perfectly legitimate reason even if you do know the harmful effects.

Also, people are accustomed to meat so a drastic change in diet may be difficult. Over the summer I tried the Atkins diet which is the exact opposite of a vegetarian diet. You can have the equivalent of one meal of carbs and the rest is protein. I couldn't even do it for three days because I love carbs and I felt wrong for eating so much meat. Since this diet was so hard for me I can understand if someone wasn't able to adapt to a vegetarian diet. It's not for everyone even if they are aware of what is being done to the environment and the animals.

No matter how many reasons someone comes up with for eating meat when they know the effects on the environment and how the animals are treated, to some extent they are just excuses.If you really want to be a vegatarian, you shouldn't care what people think, if your religion says it's okay, or if the transition is difficult.

I'm a selective omnivore/avatarian. This means that I do not eat cows, pigs, fish, deer, or anything other animal besides chicken (as well as turkey on thanksgiving) and I frequently refrain from eating meat. I have about five servings of chicken per month. And the only reason why I personally still eat meat is because I figure that I don't really have that much to begin with. I know the effects on the environment, I know how cruelly they are treated, but I still do it. And there are plenty of people like me. But just because I know these facts does that mean that I should change the way I eat? Does it suddenly make it more wrong to continue to eating meat the way I do? Possibly.

My question is: Do you think that if everyone knew the effects of eating meat, the rate of meat consumption would decrease?

Argument Against Davis

In Davis' article, The Least Harm Principal May Require That Humans Consume A Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet, he discussed how 1.8 billion animals such as mice, wild turkeys, rabbits, etc., die each year for producing a vegan diet.
He makes a good/pessimistic point that no matter what you do, animals are going to die in the process of obtaining food. He uses this argument to disprove Regan's Least Harm Principal, yet, I think he's argument is a bit extreme.
When defending the debate of intended vs. unintentional death he states, "Perhaps I don't fully understand the nuances or moral significance of this difference, but it seems to me that the harm done to the animals is the same -- dead is dead."
This reminds me of what Nicole said a few weeks ago, 'We step on ants everyday just walking around and we don't even know it.' (Of course I'm paraphrasing because it was a while ago, but it was something to that general effect.) Animals and other living things are going to be killed by humans no matter what we do. Dead isn't just Dead, when it comes to moral significance. It is the action of killing on purpose -- for no purpose and even for unnecessary purpose that we need to morally consider. We cannot be morally accountable for the things we cannot control.
I really do not think that Davis understands this "nuance". A field mouse, before getting run over by a plow was not crammed in a cage like a chicken, it did not have its feet tied together like a calf, it did not have hormones injected into it's veins so that it would produce more milk or eggs. Is this not pain? Death from being accidentally run over by a mower is instantaneous therefore no pain is felt, whereas suffering from being controlled and physically manipulated over a life time is surly more painful.
In an other defense against Davis' stance is that people who are not vegans eat that food too. Non-vegetarians are not carnivores who chop on flesh all day. Bread, corn, soybeans, and the like are not singularly for vegetarians, omnivores like/need them too. So therefore the only foods that aren't eaten across vegetarians and omnivores are meat and/or animal byproducts. And as I mentioned before, the animals who are victims of animal forging experience more pain than animals who are accidentally killed by a plow because farm animals have experienced long-term suffering. So if we are trying to evoke the least harm principal, being a vegan would be the best route because omnivores cause more harm by consuming food that in its production killed animals and animals that experienced a life time of suffering/ their byproducts.

Question: Should we feel more morally accountable for the animals that die in the field than the farm animals we consume?