The Vegetarian Dilemma
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I hate plants.
– A. Whitney Brown
Here’s the problem. Coming from someone who swerves to avoid moths and caterpillars on the road, this might sound a bit strange. But it occurred to me that the ‘compassion for animals’ argument for going vegetarian doesn’t make much sense to me. Now, it’s un-arguable that eating vegetables is better from an environmental viewpoint, since it takes a whole lot of plant material (which could otherwise be used for human consumption) to raise an animal to the point where it’s ready to be made into beefsteak or pork chops.
But the compassion argument? Here’s where it’s flawed. A vegetarian is trying to impress upon a meat-eater that one should feel compassion for the animals we kill. Now, the meat-eater might say ‘well, that’s good and all, but animals are just dumb. They don’t have feelings like people.’
They don’t have feelings like people. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But the point is that it’s difficult for the meat-eater to relate to an animal like, say, a cow. To the meat-eater, the cow just seems like a dumb hunk of meat with some basic instincts for a brain. My argument here is that vegetarians should have the same compassion for plants that they think a meat-eater should have for animals. Yes, plants might be difficult to relate to – we can argue that they don’t talk, think, or experience pain in the same way we do. But those are the same arguments the meat-eater might use for the cow. After all, none of us have ever been inside the mind of a cow, and we really don’t know what a stalk of wheat experiences, either.
Maybe the truth is that we have compassion for things that look like us. It’s easy to feel compassion for a cow, but less so for a fish, or a mosquito, or a bacteria (which many people slaughter unnecessarily every day with antibacterial soap.) When we cross the species boundary, it’s even more difficult. Flowers may get some compassion, but how about the soybean, the lentil, or the almond? Who’s sticking up for them?
Maybe, if we’re going to eat with compassion, we should look honestly at what we do and don’t know, and decide based on that, instead of on what animals we can relate to. As for me, I’ll eat a burger. I know the cow suffered (in a manner, were I to witness it, that would be very graphic). But I also know that that same cow fed many other people with its flesh. When I eat a bowl of oatmeal, I’m taking innumerable lives. The oats were waving in the sunshine, blowing gently in the breeze, and then the farm machinery came, ripped them from the ground, put them into a dark, crowded stuffy place, and kept them there until they got to ride down the conveyor belt to be smooshed into the flat shape that makes my oatmeal.
Maybe those oats are just dumb and have no feelings, and it doesn’t matter. But maybe, even though I can’t relate to them, they do experience something akin to terror or fear or loneliness.
I’m not suggesting that we all begin eating only Twinkies (they’re completely lab synthesized, right?). Or maybe fruit, which seems the most harmless sort of eating we could engage in. But I am suggesting that whatever it is we eat, we eat with awareness that we’re taking lives, and it might behoove vegetarians to realize that they shouldn’t blame a meat-eater for causing cruelty unless they’re willing to own up to their own daily slaughter.
Okay. I think I’ll go eat an . . . apple. Or maybe fast. Just for a few days . . .
This one made me smile… it is a great and unique perspective.
Thank You for sharing.
The argument that determined me to become a vegetarian was. “As long as there will be slaughterhouses there will be war.” I understood that as long as there will be ok to kill an animal people will find a way to make humans look like animals… to make it ok to kill them. This is a personal choice. I don’t try to impose it on anyone… I might present the grim reality of what does it implies for someone to eat meat… but I seldom do it to convert people… my preferred way of advertising vegetarianism is by being the change…. by being one… by demonstrating through my life that it can be done.
Greetings Peter,
As we begin to discover more and more of our similarities to other animals (I’m referring to observations of nature which show animals engaging in what many consider to be ‘human’ behavior — the result of which is that more and more humans might feel a more direct connection to these animals), perhaps people will take more notice of the perspective you are sharing here. We could definitely use some awareness and compassion when deciding what we eat (and how to treat it during its life). Thanks for adding this perspective.
Sweetwater,
Kenton
A sticky wicket if ever there was one… As an avid organic gardener, I also see my vegetables and fruits as very much alive/ a life. As a pre-med student (many lifetimes ago) I know that our teeth, our stomach acids and the length of our intestines point to meat as being one of the significant foods our bodies were designed to eat.
I long ago found the argument about not eating anything with eyes as lacking. I often see those people wearing or using leather goods or other animal byproducts without recognizing that duality. I share your view that it’s not just what we eat or don’t eat. It’s how we love and raise what we eat.
For me, as well, it’s an issue of cruelty and sustainability. I feed my family for most of the year on an 1/8 acre garden.
I loved this article. I find it interesting that there is such a vast quantity of life all around us and yet we insist on dividing it into what is “alive” and what has “life”.
Most people would say a tree is alive but would not entertain the notion that it has life. They might make the argument that it cannot think, communicate or make decisions and so therefore it does not have life as we do, but this is only a convention and doesnt really hold up if you really look at a tree.
In order for it to live and grow it must gather information and make decisions constantly. It must grow roots not only for support and balance but also to obtain nutrients and water from the soil. It must deploy its leaves in a way to collect the most sunlight possible, and its branches to put those leaves in that position. It must communicate with its surroundings in order to gather information and make these decisions. You might say the enviroment made those choices for the tree, but is it any different from the way we make “choices”?
Even science has shown that the cells in a tree communicate with each other in the same way the neurons and cells in our brains communicate in order to perform tasks. While there is no specific location for a trees brain the tree on a whole acts like a brain.
A tree is born, it lives and grows, it can be harmed and scarred, it feeds and expells waste, it reproduces, it dies. The only real difference between you and a tree is that you think your existence means more or is somehow better or more important, while the tree just exists.