--- On Thu, 4/16/09, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
>
> I admit I have also gone beyond this argument: I have held
> (or least hinted that) the loss of life of an animal can be
> a form of suffering or injustice, and if it is avoidable, it
> should be avoided. Again, I think there is enough evidence
> that this belief is widespread. We have laws against cruelty
> or killing animals, we frown upon such activities (though
> hunting as a sport: where does society stand on that?) in
> general, permitting only certain exceptions: threat to our
> survival, and more arguably impediment to our free movement
> and enjoyment. Practically speaking, in a Western
> nation, I do not believe this is avoidable when it comes to
> food.
>
> There are those who are outright offended by such arguments
> because in the very act of debate, they find an assertion of
> superiority. To avoid reverse accusations regarding their
> own prescriptions they hold that theirs are amoral and
> therefore do not make a statement about individuals and
> their "preferences". I don't buy this sleight of hand.
[WS:] While I share your non-meat preferences in everyday life (I eat fish, though), I do not think it is possible to make a logically compelling argument for vegetarianism as an ethical principle (or against it, for that matter.) The only rational grounds for ethics, afaict, is the "categorical imperative" i.e. accepting a norm that one would want to become a universal principle. It is obvious, however, that vegetarianism cannot possibly become a universal principle, at least in the same way as, say, not killing your fellow human beings.
My preference for vegetarianism and pro-vegetarian arguments is on aesthetic rather than ethical grounds. Not only killing is quite messy and meat stinks, but the arguments that meat eaters use to justify their position are the ultimate form of intellectual schlock (they usually refer to some unspecified "tradition," "way of life" or religiously inspired fiction - textbook examples of intellectual kitsch.)
What is more, meat itself is pretty tasteless, the taste come from spicing, which is almost invariably of vegetarian origin. Hence, you can add the same spicing to meat substitutes and enjoy the same (sometimes even better) taste. Vegetarian meals are more aesthetically pleasing than carcasses of dead animals.
The same applies to vegetarian arguments - which paraphrasing Nietszche - are more venerable than those of meat eaters because they are more intellectually fruitful. Anyone who takes an effort to intellectually challenge the status quo and established habits is infinitely more venerable than hacks defending that status quo and established habits, regardless of the truth function of their propositions.
Wojtek