qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
Philosophy Position Paper
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
Moral Vegetarianism
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
4/20/2011
Mitchell Waite
1
In this day and age of environmental enlightenment the burning question for many people tends
to be, is vegetarianism the answer for a morally sound lifestyle? For many, it is an enigmatic situation,
and the more that individuals learn about environmental ethics, the more that a state of befuddlement
becomes the norm. I myself, on the other hand, put forth the question of why the practice of
vegetarianism in the first place? After much time spent pondering this question, it has brought me to
the actual conclusion that herbivorous people choose this type of diet as an act of moral extensionism
towards other animals; they see a lack of parity amongst species, and feel that many are being robbed
of their moral rights. The truth of the matter is vegetarianism isn’t necessarily the answer for achieving
symbiosis with other species and inviting all biological divisions into the Moral Circle.
Now, in order to address the question offered in the previous paragraph, one must leave the
path of popular thought and teachings, and pave a new course of philosophical rebirth. There is a need
to utilize the Radical Doubt Experiment of Rene Descartes and question what it means to be moral. In
truth, this very practice allowed me to escape society’s ideological umbrella and adapt my own theories
and decide for myself what morality really is. This in turn has allowed me to establish the members of
my moral circle.
Morality by definition is conformity to rules of right conduct, or a sense of behavioral conduct
that differentiates acts and decisions between right and wrong. Really there are two schools of thought
when it comes to the subject of Morality. The first is that a code of conduct by definition is something
descriptive. This is derived from the study of descriptive ethics which explore people’s beliefs about
morality; thus, for example students of this subject would ask the question: What do people think is
right? The second perspective is that of normative ethics. It refers directly to what is right and wrong.
This field would ask: How should people act? I profess that many practitioners of this diet do greatly
error in assuming that morality is something universal. Critics of omnivores have to be careful with how
2
they throw the word “moral” around. Vegetarians believe that the eating of an animal is immoral and
that this should be the norm for all in this ethical situation; however, it is only according to their beliefs
and personal convictions that eating meat is wrong. Morality is subjective. You cannot base a decision
like abstinence of meat on a type of normative moral ethic because I feel that when confronted with this
issue, what is right and wrong is based on purely personal and or cultural beliefs. Hinduism for example
is a religion that believes cows to be sacred, and beef is never consumed. On the other hand, it is one of
the few religions that still carry out animal sacrifices today. According to some, Hindus wouldn’t be
following a correct moral code. To feel and believe that no one can show moral respect and equality
towards another species until one has committed to being a vegetarian is a logical fallacy and a sign of
narrow-mindedness.
Aside from me being so brash as to question the very principle of morality itself, I still most
strongly and unequivocally feel that other biological families should be given moral consideration. This
is my personal belief. But again, you don’t have to become a vegetarian in order to demonstrate a sense
of moral equality towards other species. My truth is that certain species are here for our consumption.
The issue for me is how they are treated while alive.
Philosophers and followers of the animal rights movement have also called into question the
treatment of animals in our society and the low moral fiber that appears to exist amongst Americans.
Now, information is readily available and easily accessible that demonstrates the dark turn American
society has taken in order to appease its rather large appetites. Cruel practices are implemented now at
meat processing farms in order to maximize production. For example, the American laying hen has to
pass its short life span confined to a cage no bigger than their body. Their beaks are also cut off at the
end in order to avoid them pecking one another to death which is common in these facilities. Other
species up until recently haven’t been given any type of moral consideration. Attitudes on this matter
3
have changed, and now there are theorists such as Peter Singer who have made such claims as, “If a
being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.
No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted
equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being.”
Those who do not take the suffering of other species into consideration are at risk of being speciesist
according to Singer. I do agree with this statement. Though not all species share the same interests,
they still all share the same rights and stake in life. The treatment of other species in our society is very
industrial. Also as Singer mentions, “Animals are treated like machines that convert fodder into flesh
and any innovation that results in a higher “conversion ratio” is liable to be adopted.” With the rapid
growth of meat consumption in the United States, Singer is completely correct in stating that animals
are nothing more than a means to society. But once again, the answer in my mind still is not
vegetarianism. Another philosopher named Michael Pollan shared his insights on the matter that I feel
demonstrate how a perfect state of symbiosis can be established and developed with all species
currently falling victims to the meat processing industry.
Michael Pollan himself is an author and an activist. He is of the mindset that moral
consideration of animals can be achieved while still using them for agricultural purposes. In fact, he
strongly advocates the concept of domestication and calls it an evolutionary step that was taken by
other animals as a form of bargaining with humans. In his own words he states, “Domestication
happened when a small handful of especially opportunistic species discovered through Darwinian trial
and error that they were more likely to survive and prosper in an alliance with humans than on their
own—to think of domestication as a form of enslavement or even exploitation is to misconstrue the
instance of mutualism between species.” I do strongly advocate the idea of domestication as
progression and a necessary development for many forms of species. In theory animals can receive
absolute respect and moral consideration in domestication. In many circumstances though, change is
4
necessary. Biological divisions are being mistreated due to capitalistic fat cats and consumers’
detrimental greed for beef.
Michael Pollan realizes that animals are mistreated and that it is due to nefarious individuals
and unfettered capitalism. The solution offered is one that could bring absolute parity to the system
and establish a sense of moral consideration, even for farm animals. Pollan’s rebuttal for vegans and
vegetarians everywhere is Polyface Farms. This agricultural development was established and started
by Joel Salatin; he raises the livestock on his farm using holistic methods of animal husbandry. Rather
than the food animals being confined to small cages and abusive circumstances, his farm includes 550
acres of free roaming forest and grassland in Virginia. Here the livestock is treated with intrinsic value
and their proper rights are given to them and they still serve their ultimate purpose.
Many still would have an issue with this farming because in the eyes of people like Singer, it is
the act of killing another species that shows we treat them as machines. The reason is because animal
rightists are concerned with the individual rather than the species itself. This form of thinking coincides
with the culture of liberal individualism, and in contrary to a principle of mutualism which Pollan
explains exists in nature. The truth of the matter is just that; the ideologies of animal rightists are very
parochial and many are rather ignorant in this regard. Species have interests, and for many it is to
survive. Even for farm animals, their chances of survival are much higher in domestication versus the
wild. Salatin’s farm is the ANSWER and the direction in which we should be heading as far as
environmental ethical progress. Predation exists, and animals can be treated with moral consideration
and still be eaten.
In truth I feel that the idea of vegetarianism has gained so much popularity today due in part to
the animal rights movement which came about primarily due to the harsh treatments of other biota in
society. Measures need to be taken in order to improve our relationship with other species, and
5
develop a state of ethical parity and perfect symbiosis; however, the practice of vegetarianism is an over
step of action. Many find themselves paralyzed by guilt for the unethical treatment of animals and turn
to abstinence of meat as act of personal vendetta with big agricultural companies. I feel it is a very
drastic measure to take. The proper action is for industrial farming to turn back the clock and return to
a sense of mutualism between species. In this manner, we can establish symbiosis. Herbivorous
individuals are on the right track but have over shot the mark. Vegetarianism is unnecessary and only
serves as white noise for an issue that needs to be addressed with more than just a change of diet.