On 'Vegetarianism’
Where do you draw the line between what meat can be consumed without moral or ethical objections? Will you ever/when will you judge other people if they don't meet your moral and ethical standards?
This question has boggled my mind for a long time now, and though there are numerous doubts I still have on this topic, some thoughts have found their peace in my mind. In addition to numerous everyday inputs, some discussions (like the movie The Ship of Theseus) have had a profound effect on me. Here are my thoughts. On the first question —
The question posed implicitly assumes that there is a spectrum on the moral and ethical nature of what we consume.
Here is why I agree with the presence of a spectrum and not a dichotomy: Biologically, we know that everything we consume is/contains a living organism. Though this a “duh” statement, it goes a long way into addressing various doubts we have about the ethicality of our consumption habits. Be it a grain of rice (with microscopic organisms on it, and born out of the ‘harvest’ aka cutting or killing the rice plant), or a cow — we kill to eat; we kill to survive. Thus, there is no way that we can survive without killing any organism.
In fact, the aforementioned movie goes on to beautifully show, that even if a monk were to let themselves die so that they don't harm other organisms, they would still be killing the multitude of bacteria present within the human body — thus making the monk a killer. This cements the existence of a spectrum and that every human being is a killer of some organism for their survival.
Having established this spectrum, the next question becomes: Where do you draw the line?
Interestingly, there is only one extreme in this spectrum - deciding to be comfortable with ‘killing’ and consumption of everything (seed, root, plant, animal, human); as surviving without killing any living organism is not possible (eliminating the other end of the spectrum). One major factor that has served as a crutch to me in drawing this line is empathy. When we are young, we might learn to empathize with another person’s pain - automatically drawing the line at not harming another human to consume them. With time, we might start empathizing similarly with dogs, cats, etc., thereby progressively shrinking our edible spectrum of organisms. It is at this intersection where I personally believe that the biggest split (of being a vegetarian/non vegetarian) happens.
Being raised a vegetarian, my spectrum had by default fallen under this mark - as I excluded chickens, goats, etc. I also feel that this is the point where discussions about the sentient nature of organisms come in. Somewhere along the line - I saw the slaughter of a chicken, and didn’t want to directly/indirectly cause that. I did not want to kill an organism that bled like me and, screamed in a way I could comprehend. Thus I conveniently/sheepishly decided to only eat organisms that couldn’t express the harm I caused them in a way I could understand. I’m still killing plants, fueling the atrocities meted out to cows for their milk, and suffocating chickens for the cake I love so dearly. Basically, I can comprehend the suffering of these organisms, but still choose to exploit them.
One point to note here is that taste/generic food appeal also plays a role - the wider your spectrum is, the greater variety of food you get to taste. Thus for me, empathy has acted in a manner to shrink my spectrum whereas taste acted in an expanding manner. There have been various points in my life when I pushed to expand my spectrum - eating mushrooms, consuming food with oyster sauce, etc. I love the taste of what I eat currently and thus am not able to shrink my spectrum any further. I did try - but couldn’t maintain it. And why did I try it? Because I wanted to experiment with reducing the harm I inflict on organisms as much as I can. Thus, taste and selectively exercising empathy have created the conflict that keeps me at my present mark on this spectrum.
Now to address the second question —
I’m going to go all bold on this. I believe that - just because I don’t eat meat, it does not make me a better/kinder/more empathetic person than someone who eats meat. I merely have chosen to not empathize with the killing of a few organisms as I have with others. After all, I don’t wilt when I see a wilting plant (easter egg).
Thus, for me - you, me and every other person is somewhere along this spectrum. Since we all kill some organisms, I do not find a need to judge anyone for not adhering to my mark along this spectrum.
Some areas I’m yet to contemplate further are — the environmental repercussions of what I eat, the sentient nature of beings, and the relative values of life, etc. As I tread this rocky path of self realization, the only crutch I have is to not be judgemental of myself. Not extending that to the general populous only describes me with one word — bigoted.
TL;DR: Everyone kills to survive. Empathizing with the death of certain organisms and serving my taste buds has kept me largely as a plant eater (with some exceptions). I do not judge anyone for eating what they do - it’s a personal choice to pick your mark along the spectrum.
