In response to Kurt's post 'Vegetarianism and Culture' (3/10/2013):
I agree that it can sometimes be very difficult to adopt and maintain a vegetarian or vegan diet (or, in some cases, even a pescatarian diet) in modern America. Many non-meat-eating acquaintances of mine (not me personally, since I mostly live away from my family, and they are relatively supportive anyway) have dealt with this conflict by being vegetarian or vegan almost all the time, but making exceptions for Thanksgiving and other holidays.
While I see the benefit of this, and while it is easy enough to say that just one meal with meat won't make a difference, I think such a system has a definite downside in that it sends the wrong message. While it is true that the meat industry is so large that it produces surplus these days, and so eating part of a turkey once a year may not lead directly to the slaughter of another turkey, this would not be the case if, as we can hope, the meat industry mostly died off. Making a once-a-year exception then would have a much greater impact. I think it is important to communicate that eating meat is not okay (unless necessitated by health) even on holidays and other special occasions - although I also understand that many people may not choose to do this, and believe that it should be their own choice (at least until the meat industry dies, in which case it may become a matter of law or something like that).
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Q&A 4, Answer 2
My question is: Is the use of animal products (such as leather) immoral if it does not require killing (or harming) animals?
As with my previous question, my initial thought is 'no.' Even upon reflection I still see nothing immoral in utilising animal products. However, for many people who are fully aware of the rights of animals, it might very well be distasteful.
I do not think it is immoral because if one does harm the animal in question in any way, its rights are not being violated. Similarly, it is not immoral to use human products as long as one harms no humans in doing so. For example, if a person decides to voluntarily provide their own milk, which their body generated, to you, so that one can make ice cream, no immorality is involved. I say 'voluntarily' because if one takes their milk against their will, then even if they are not physically harmed, one is psychologically harming them - and that would be immoral. Many people, though, would likely object to the idea of drinking human milk, and they might find it similarly disgusting to drink the milk of non-humans if they viewed animals accurately. Others would see nothing distasteful in either situation.
As with my previous question, my initial thought is 'no.' Even upon reflection I still see nothing immoral in utilising animal products. However, for many people who are fully aware of the rights of animals, it might very well be distasteful.
I do not think it is immoral because if one does harm the animal in question in any way, its rights are not being violated. Similarly, it is not immoral to use human products as long as one harms no humans in doing so. For example, if a person decides to voluntarily provide their own milk, which their body generated, to you, so that one can make ice cream, no immorality is involved. I say 'voluntarily' because if one takes their milk against their will, then even if they are not physically harmed, one is psychologically harming them - and that would be immoral. Many people, though, would likely object to the idea of drinking human milk, and they might find it similarly disgusting to drink the milk of non-humans if they viewed animals accurately. Others would see nothing distasteful in either situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)