Ethically speaking, vegetarians are better human beings and
it's a shame I'm not one of them.
The meat industry is responsible for terrifying levels of
food-waste, pollution and an overall contribution to animal suffering that is
impossible to support in good conscience. Deep down we all know this. This
barely acknowledged guilt is why non-vegetarians so frequently voice their
petty gripes and quips about out-spoken vegetarians; this is despite "anti-vegetarians" generally being far more obnoxious and vocal. In
short, we are guilty and we know it. Neither sneering t-shirt sloganism nor panel show laddism will make this go away.
When it comes to the moral question of vegetarianism, those healthy bastards
have us cornered.
I confess that I
currently eat meat only because I like the taste of it: the ethical arguments have yet to
overpower my appetite. This is a fairly common quandary for me: many of my moral
failings emanate from a chasm between what I recognise intellectually and how I actually behave. I'm not a very rational person.
Anyway, enough self-flagellation...
Vegetarianism has obvious implications for one's dietary
requirements and the ethical premises on which it is founded often leads one to
veganism. That is to say that the kind of argumentation that inspires vegetarianism,
whether it be animal rights or simple utility calculation, often demands
refusing not just the ingestion of animal products but also the use of them in
general.
Alongside the renouncement of leather-jackets is the question
of pets. Can a vegan/vegetarian keep one? If you are of a moral rights strain
then the answer is generally yes but within reason. If you are a utility focused ethicist
then there is a little more wriggle room, but still a number of variables to
account for.
How ethical is the pet-trade in hamsters et al? Are all
hamster sellers morally equal or are there some who are morally preferable?
What harms might be inflicted on a domesticated hamster and does it out-weigh
the pains endured by not-existing?
More interesting is the question of carnivorous pets. I
have kept snakes myself so I will use them as a somewhat racier case study
than the more mundane, and probably more ethically concerning, example of cats.
A snake lives only in
virtue of other animals dying. Bearing this in mind, is the snake a moral
effrontery to a decent minded vegetarian? Is the vegetarian obliged to kill it
in order to save the other animals whose suffering is needed to feed the snake?
If one had a moral
rights inclination then the answers would probably be something to the tune of
yes to the former and no to the latter. However, if one were more inspired by
utilitarians such as Peter Singer then the question of killing the snake
becomes more difficult to answer. In
closing, I don't have anything particularly deep or insightful to say; I'm just
waiting to see an ALF activist torch a reptile store.
No comments:
Post a Comment