RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceWhat is healthful food? Is it a spring strawberry, fresh from a local, organic farm? A nonfat yogurt or a fortified energy bar? A food with low-calorie, low-fat, low-sugar or low-carb in the name? It's a question whose answer ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
And just how, Kathryn, does being organic or local make it humane? Are these local farmers not using actual animals in their beef, chicken, or lamb products? 'Cause that's the only way it would actually be humane. That is if you actually mean humane and aren't just throwing around a buzz word in a typical Greening Princeton kind of way.
@ Anonymous Coward:
Kathryn's article was well-written and informed, and does not deserve the immature abuse that you are directing at it. You act as if you are some all-knowing guru of ethics - well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the vast majority of the world would disagree with you. There does exist, in fact, an inherent difference between humans and animals, and to put them on the same level of moral status is folly. Let me ask you a few questions. Do you constantly look down at your feet while walking on pavement? Because if you don't, you could be stepping on ants, worms, or beetles, killing them and making you a murderer from you point-of-view. Do you live in a house or a dorm? These types of housing have killed animals in the process of their construction, and take up niches which they could be living in now. There are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, but I'll let you answer those two first. Let's see how humane you are.
Well informed? There was no substance to be misinformed about. But that's neither here nor there. Sure animals and humans are different; to argue otherwise is simply ridiculous. But it's also silly I think to claim that something is humane without any evidence to back up that assertion. You can claim that whatever happy meat greening princeton is trying to introduce is *more* humane perhaps, and that's an argument that, while still fundamentally wrong, at least has some merit. But killing animals for pleasure (and that's all it is when you have plenty of other alternatives to eat that allow you to maintain a healthy lifestyle), is inherently inhumane. Although animal agriculture is one of the biggest causes of global warming, greening princeton and any other so called environmental agencies won't call for people to stop eating meat, however, because that would actually involve change to their members' lifestyles...something which very few environmentalists are actually willing to do. It's far easier to sit off on the sideline and ask dining services to buy local lettuce than it is to ask your members to make a much more significant impact on the environment by not eating meat. Anyway, in response to your silly and rather trite anti-vegetarian questions, there's a very simple answer: while it's still ethically undesirable to step on bugs or displace wildlife, some actions are reasonably controlled (like choosing to not eat meat) and some are not (like choosing to shun society, to sleep with your mouth closed, and to not walk). The idea is simply to minimize suffering to the best of one's ability. Eating meat when there are plenty of healthy alternatives doesn't not count as minimizing suffering to the best on one's ability.
@AC:"Although animal agriculture is one of the biggest causes of global warming, greening princeton and any other so called environmental agencies won't call for people to stop eating meat, however, because that would actually involve change to their members' lifestyles...something which very few environmentalists are actually willing to do. It's far easier to sit off on the sideline and ask dining services to buy local lettuce than it is to ask your members to make a much more significant impact on the environment by not eating meat." I have a question. Since when did eating meat become some sort of litmus test for whether or not one is a true environmentalist? I recently chose to become a vegetarian for environmental reasons as well, but geez, I didn't realize that this was supposedly the only true way that one can alter his/her lifestyle to help the environment.
Re: Anon Coward "But killing animals for pleasure (and that's all it is when you have plenty of other alternatives to eat that allow you to maintain a healthy lifestyle), is inherently inhumane." Just out of curiosity, but what if one can't afford a healthy vegetarian/vegan diet? Is one still being an inhumane citizen in that instance?
I never said it was the *only* way, just an extraordinarily effective one, especially in comparison to buying locally produced or organic food. The point I sought to make was more along the lines of "greening princeton is only willing to advocate minor changes that really don't force anyone to go out of their way to make a difference". While this type of advocacy has a place perhaps in garnering broad appear, small changes aren't going to make that big of a difference. If, however, its members really wanted to make an easy and more significant impact, they could go vegetarian. It's probably the single more effective thing a person can do if he wants to help the environment. But that doesn't mean it's the *only* way.
I would contest that there is nobody who can normally afford food who cannot afford a healthy vegan diet. Sure some of the fancy processed foods sold at Whole Foods or other places might be a bit pricier than their non-vegan counterparts, but such things are far from necessary. I think it is quite possible to have a completely balanced diet of fruit, vegetable, and grain products for less than the price of a non-vegan diet; meat, after all, is typically one of the most expensive food items for most families. The animals used for meat are fed these types of things, so if one were to skip the middleman (or animal as the case may be), one could easily expect to save money in the long term. You could propose a hypothetical situation I suppose where a poor family faces the choice of either eating a cow or immediately dying and I think the ethical issues involved there are a bit more complicated, but fortunately for us, this situation doesn't exist in modern America.
"I would contest that there is nobody who can normally afford food who cannot afford a healthy vegan diet." That's questionable. On the one hand, all other things being equal, the ingredients needed to sustain a healthy vegan diet are probably cheaper than those needed to sustain a healthy omnivore diet. But as we all know, all other things are hardly ever equal. Given that Western society tends to be very meat-centric, maintaining a nutritious vegan diet requires probably far more time and and dedication than maintaining a non-vegan one. While your average college student might have this time, a working-class single mom working multiple jobs, for instance, will probably find it more practical to pick a less time-consuming diet (which, in the case of the United States, is usually one that contains cheap, low-grade animal products). This isn't to say that a low-income family can't adhere to a vegan/vegetarian diet, but whether they'll be able to devote the time to maintain a healthy one is another story. Regarding the ethics of this issue, I'd imagine that the lower someone is on the socioeconomic ladder, the more likely they are to be more concerned with his/her day-to-day survival than with the welfare of animals.
I think it's important that we not automatically assume that organic = healthy either. Something can be organic and still have a ton of cholesterol, saturated fat etc.
I think AC has been right about most things. Although I think there is another meaning of "humane" besides AC's narrow view. AC, you seem to be committed to an ethic that entails that all (or most) animals have a right to life. But what if they don't have a right to life per se, only a right not to experience unnecessary pain and suffering? This idea is derived from Singer's equal consideration of interests philosophy. If an animal does not have a conception of self over time, does not have plans for a future, etc. then it cannot be harmed by the painless ending of its life. If we accept this framework, then in principle it would be ethically permissible to eat meat, provided that the animals are killed as painlessly and instantaneously as possible. Of course, I will concede that even the best "organic"/"free-range"/"humane" farming techniques probably fall short of that ideal. Nevertheless, in principle, it is possible to eat meat "humanely."