March
1995
Philosophic
Vegetarianism: Acting Affirmatively for Peace
By Karen Davis, PhD
|
|
|
The plea for ethical veganism, which rejects the treatment
of birds and other animals as a food source, is not rooted in arid adherence
to diet or dogma, but in the desire to eliminate the kinds of experiences
that using animals for food confers upon beings with feelings. Historically,
ethical vegetarianism has rejected the eating of an animal’s muscle
tissue, or “meat,” as this requires killing an animal specifically
for the purpose of consumption. The ethical vegetarian regards killing
an offending creature simply to please one’s palate and conform
to society with revulsion and likewise disdains premeditating the premature
death of an animal. Thus, Plutarch, who did not eat animals, mourned
that “But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive
a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time
it had been born into the world to enjoy.”
Confronted with factory farming, more and more people have come to feel
that causing an animal to lead a miserable existence for an extended
period is worse than giving an animal a short lifespan, and that the
degradation of animals is intrinsic to producing them for food. While
in nature, animals exist for their own reasons, not only for others’
use, in production agriculture, by contrast, animals are brought into
the world solely to be used.
Though vegetarians may choose to consume dairy products and eggs, in
reality the distinction between “meat” on the one hand and
dairy products and eggs on the other is moot, as the production of milk
and eggs involves as much cruelty and killing as meat production does:
surplus cockerels and calves, as well as spent hens and cows, have been
slaughtered and otherwise brutally destroyed through the ages. Spent
commercial dairy cows and laying hens endure agonizing days of pre-slaughter
starvation and long trips to the slaughterhouse because of their low
market value. Thus, to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian is not to wash one’s
hands of misery and murder.
It should be remembered, moreover, that milk and eggs are as much a
part of an animal as “meat” is. No less than muscles, these
parts comprise within themselves the activities and functions of an
animal’s body including a store of food and immunity for the embryo
and newborn, and, in the case of a fertilized hen’s egg, the embryo
itself.
The decision to eat or not to eat animal products should not be regarded
as a mere personal “food” choice. This perpetuates the self-defeating
view of animals as sources of food, rather than as fellow creatures
with lives of their own to live, and hides the fact that in choosing
to consume animal products one chooses a life based on slavery and violence.
Peace activist Helen Nearing, said that one can assume a degree of sentience
in plants and still recognize that “There’s clearly a distinction
between a new-born baby lamb and a newly ripened tomato.”
Some argue that the only way to persuade people to adopt a plant-based
diet is to emphasize the effects of animal product consumption on human
health and the environment. While these effects should be stressed whenever
possible, it is a mistake to assume that people cannot care about their
fellow creatures. Millions of people have impulses of compassion that
have been stifled by fear of social reprisal. Many will openly care
and move toward change when they feel it is socially safe. Eventually,
some of the physical problems that are caused by an animal-based diet
may be resolved by technology. Only the shared mortality and claims
of our fellow creatures upon us are lasting.
 |
|
|
 |
