Vegeterians should stop in-fighting

One rarely dwells too long upon topics like animal cruelty, inefficient food production, and unsanitary processing conditions, but these are just a few of the considerations that drive many people to a lifetime of vegetarianism.

For a vegetarian though, a diet without steak and chicken wings usually comprises less than half the problem. As with most potentially political statements, the inevitable backlash demands a ready ideological defense, firm convictions and sometimes just a long temper.

One instinctively expects a question or two from the carnivorous cowboys who cannot imagine a salad without bacon, much less chili without beef. However, justifications for not eating meat from chickens — "I wish they weren't cooped up in little cages and overstuffed with hormones to make them grow and lay more eggs" — quickly draw a blush and a stutter when applied to a lacto-ovo vegetarian ingesting an omelet for breakfast.

"Why draw the line at chickens," one critic may demand. "If you really cared about the animals, you wouldn't eat eggs and milk, either."

Many people on both sides of the argument seem to interpret vegetarianism as a self-righteous, quasi-religious statement of moral superiority. For this reason, the same person who loathes political vegetarianism — and picks it apart for any trace of hypocrisy — often accepts it much more amicably in someone acting upon health or religious motivations. Somehow, having an external force mandating such behavior excuses it in a way that acting on one's own volition cannot.

Perhaps this animosity roots in a conservative's natural antagonism toward the liberal left, out to supplant society's traditional values with arbitrary new ones that compromise humanity's rightful place at the top of the food chain.

But why, then, are the harshest, most intimidating criticisms so often from other vegetarians, not to mention the small but aggressive vegan population?

While one vegetarian may oppose eating meat in all cases on moral grounds, perhaps he or she should also tolerate other values. So what if a "vegetarian" does not consider fish meat or prioritizes tradition above political aims to eat turkey on Thanksgiving? If the goal is to collectively reduce national meat consumption to protest some offensive part of the food-processing industry, does it really make sense to mock someone's sincere efforts to further a cause nearly identical to one's own?

...Moreover, the desire to pass judgment flows in both directions. What purpose does anyone — perhaps least of all a vegetarian — serve by ridiculing a vegan for being "too extreme?" In the end, people that have enough options to pick and choose a personal diet should do so in accordance with their own needs and moral conscience.

For many people in the United States — not to mention the many developing countries of the world — who lack the means to acquire adequate amounts of nutrition in any form, the concept of vegetarianism seems absurdly alien. Whether one interprets this inequality as a reason to become a vegetarian — raising crops is much more economically efficient than raising livestock — or a reason to count one's blessing and capitalize on all available dietary options must remain the choice of the individual.

Perhaps instead of criticizing the lack of an unwavering principle, vegans and vegetarians are better off encouraging even minimal steps in the right direction. On the same token, carnivores need not become so defensive about their eating habits. If the conscience gets bothersome, one should certainly take action, but if it remains dormant on this particular issue, have patience with those that feel more strongly.

One should not actively ignore or dispute the fact that vegetarianism generally represents the most intelligent utilization of the earth's natural resources, but if someone explains his or her alternative moral priorities — "Hey, man, I just spent a cold, miserable week building a sewage system for the less fortunate in the mountains of Guatemala; let me enjoy my American cheeseburger" — others can easily make an effort to respect them.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Dispassionate, intellectual debate on this matter may seem hopelessly idealistic, but if it is possible anywhere, it must be possible here at Princeton. A sincere effort to think through issues and take a stand on what matters most in one's life constitutes a high achievement in itself and must always, if not endorsed, at least be considered.

Sanhita Sen is a freshman from Yorktown, Va. You can reach her at sen@princeton.edu.