A righteous kill: Addendum

A while ago I explored my ambivalence about my consumption. I have read a little more on the issue and I think I have made a little more progress on the way to understand my morals. I recently read an essay about how vegans must live by Xavier Cohen and an interesting counter argument for it by Thomas Sittler.

Xavier starts out by stating : “ I focus exclusively on that significant portion of vegans who believe consuming foods that contain animal products to be wrong because they care about harm to animals, perhaps insofar as they have rights, perhaps because they are sentient beings who can suffer, or perhaps because of a combination thereof.”

Thomas begins his essay under this assumption and goes on to qualify it: “Vegetarians reduce the demand for meat, so that farmers will breed fewer animals, preventing the existence of additional animals. If ethical vegetarians believed animals have lives that are unpleasant but still better than non-existence, they would focus on reducing harm to these animals without reducing their numbers, for instance by supporting humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows……..if vegetarians were to apply this principle consistently, wild animal suffering would dominate their concerns, and may lead them to be stringent anti-environmentalists.”

AN interestingly structured argument indeed. I echo his opinions as well. If the singular driving motive behind staunch vegetarianism was the aim to lower animal suffering, then pursued to its logical conclusion, it would be absurdly impossible. We consume by products born from animals in one way or the other, whether it is in the form of milk or catgut sutures. It would be an interesting dilemma if one refused to accept catgut sutures during an operation on the grounds that it was possibly manufactured by mistreating animals, then isn’t one prolonging one’s own suffering while an alternative is obtained. Isn’t one responsible for one’s own suffering and thereby causing harm to an animal (oneself) while trying to be morally steadfast in trying to abstain from using a product derived from harm to another animal? This is only one out of the multifarious instances of indirect consumption out there.

Perhaps a lot more nuance is required when we try to frame the ethics around the consumption of meat or the lack of its consumption.

I guess one would have to uphold the same values to all forms of resource consumption. If one’s morals prevent one from consuming products that are derived out of harm, then it must also extend to consuming produce that come from locally sourced organic farms with their unfair labor policies. The clothes, shoes and technology that one uses must also pass these cruelty-free-consumption paradigms. Unfortunately, in our current times, this would prove incredibly impossible. If one claims to be a vegan and proceeds to proselytize “environmentalism” as Xavier puts it, using the technology that was manufactured in companies where suicides due to stress were ubiquitous, isn’t it simply counter-intuitive? It isn’t just a single case, most of our commonplace needs are born out of sweatshops and bloodied fingers of bleak lives in remote parts of the world that we conveniently forget.

This is not an argument supporting consumption of meat or a polemic against vegans. I would be incredibly naive if I didn’t acknowledge the change. The meat industry isn’t just the local butcher anymore. They are billion dollar conglomerates running large scale industrialized farming of animals. It requires over 15,000 liters of water to produce one kilogram of beef. I am aware that I contribute to this in very overt way. I am part of the demand.

If the aim is to reduce the suffering of animals, then what about those in the wild? Shouldn’t we extend the same to those creatures, both predator and prey? Morality is absolute, one cannot bend it to one’s will. When conflicted with such confounding claims and counter claims, how does one define one’s values without cognitive dissonance?

I no longer wish to vacillate on whether my meat consumption is morally reprehensible or not. I accept the consequences of my action. I acknowledge that the food on my table is a product of torture and abuse. It was obtained by depriving the life of another creature breed for the purpose of slaughter. I am complicit in the cruelty and shoulder responsibility for it.

I am of the opinion that it is still possible to condemn morally reprehensible acts against animals and consume meat. It is difficult to defend meat consumption even under the umbrella of biology. Our food processing technology has evolved enough for us to live off plant and plant based protein. It is no longer necessary to consume animals for protein.

It is a choice. My choice results in cruelty and I accept that.