Student Life | The independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis since 1878

Veganism: Putting a face to that plate of bacon

I’ve been a vegetarian since my senior year of high school. But I hadn’t really examined why I became a vegetarian in a long time. I have canned answers I give curious murder-mongers, but they’re generally terse statements of ideology. After thinking about it, I’ve decided that the logical, consistent step is to become vegan. In a perfect world, everyone else would be vegan too. We don’t live in a perfect world, though, and it’s not possible for everyone to make the switch. The key is to do the best one can given the information and resources available. It’s not really enough to say “everyone should be vegan” (or “everyone should stop buying clothes made in sweatshops” or whatever), which seems to me to be the basic message of most ethically based movements.

More broadly, examining one’s beliefs, in everything from political ideology to consumer choices, is important. Before I became a vegetarian, I ate meat because it was a habit, it was pleasurable and it was how I was raised. I’d never really thought about becoming a vegetarian even though I had an intuitive sense that I didn’t want to hurt animals. There’s obviously a gap between the examination of beliefs and then putting them into practice, and the idea of examining one’s beliefs both for accuracy and logical consistency is important. With regard to veganism and animal rights more broadly, I always thought it was intuitive that most animals experience pain. I generally shy away from inflicting pain on others (at least, physical pain), so why wouldn’t I try to avoid contributing to animals’ pain? But there are other, more complicated factors involved in implementing that decision and deciding exactly what “avoiding inflicting pain on animals” means. For example, until recently, I had never thought about the concept of giving non-human animals rights that would protect them from being slaughtered. Obviously, the Constitution was not written with the well-being of cows (or as George Washington would say, “ye olde foodstuffs”) in mind. If not rights in the constitutional sense, then, why not a general respect for their well-being and reducing their suffering?

It’s true that it’s intuitively less easy to empathize with animals that do not look or think like us—though perhaps this is in part because we are, for the most part, trained from childhood to view them as either meat or pets or both. Yeah, we like cute pictures of pet pigs, but that stops few people from eating bacon. That kind of cognitive dissonance should be questioned, although maybe it isn’t cognitive dissonance at all. Placing animals in the “cute” category turns them into objects for our pleasure. It’s similar to objectification of women; it’s harder to respect a person whom you’re trained to view as a sexual object. Examining the problem of the objectification of women is a pretty recent development itself.

The rights of women, African Americans, Native Americans and any number of minority groups seemed ludicrous at one point. The idea of giving rights to non-human animals may seem ludicrous now, but in a few hundred years, it might be normal. Already it’s fairly easy to become a vegetarian in the United States and not that much more onerous to become a vegan (given a certain level of income, of course). The main factors that prevent the spread of vegetarianism are social pressure, limited access to healthy vegetarian food and the gustatory pleasure derived from eating. The first two are understandable. If you’re poor, your main concern is earning enough to buy food—going through the process of changing your diet and seeking out vegan products is burdensome if you have neither time nor disposable income. I’m lucky enough to be in a privileged position where I can afford to do the research and shop to support a vegan lifestyle. It’s not possible for everyone. The one argument I have no patience for is the pleasurable aspects of eating meat. You really mean to tell me that you value your own momentary pleasure enough to contribute to the pain of other animals?

No one is “perfectly ethical” in that he or she can always avoid doing harm. In general, we give historical figures like Woodrow Wilson something of a pass for racist attitudes because it was a different time. People are products of their times. I can see a similar attitude being prevalent a thousand years from now when we’re all wearing neon bodysuits on our moon base: “Yeah, Nelson Mandela was pretty great and all, even though he did eat meat.” That said, if an individual has information about animal suffering and has the resources to implement that switch, as do so many of us at Wash. U. and in the United States more generally, he or she should make that change. The “failure” to become a vegan or vegetarian doesn’t make an immoral person, but keeping an attitude of consciousness, of examining the attitudes you hold dear, is important and not just in terms of diet.

comments

Log In

  • Cameron Ubel says:

    The lion does not care about the pain of the gazelle when he rips it to shreds. Nor do I care about the pain of a cow when I eat a steak. There is a food chain and humans are at the top. Animals are on this earth to be eaten, and they eat each other every day as well. Obviously the author of this article read “Animal Farm” too many times, because she seems to think that animals are superior to humans. They’re not. They are inferior.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  • Anonymous Dissenter says:

    First you throw out these hate filled words calling meat eaters “murder-mongers” then you make the ludicrous assertion that the objectification of women is on par with the production of meat? This isn’t an editorial to make me think twice about the ethics of my own meat consumption; it’s a soapbox for you to stand on to preach to the WashU community to show everyone how “holier than thou” you are because you are a vegan and I had a turkey sandwich for lunch. Not anywhere in this piece of “journalism” was there any semblance of a coherent argument. But if you are truly invested in improving the lives of living creatures, why not first start with humans? Instead of frivolously spending money to satisfy your own vegan diet, why not switch to a less expensive diet (perhaps one involveing meat) and use the residual money to purchase food for a food bank? Do you really mean to tell me that you value animal rights over the standard of living of your fellow human beings? That sounds very immoral to me. Instead of pointing your finger at us meat eaters, you should point with your thumb and check your own privilege.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

    • anonymous says:

      Her arguments is *not* the most cogent; frankly, a plant-based diet is theoretically less expensive. That said, your rebuttal about feeding the hungry is a joke.

      W”e funnel huge amounts of grain, soybeans, and corn through all the animals we use for food instead of feeding starving humans. If we stopped intensively breeding farmed animals and grew crops to feed humans instead, we could easily feed everyone on the planet with healthy and affordable vegetarian foods.”

      http://www.care2.com/greenliving/could-veganism-end-world-hunger.html

      Perhaps, instead of telling her to check her own privilege, reconsider your own, and the ramifications of your *decision* to eat meat.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  • Curious Crustacean says:

    “You really mean to tell me that you value your own momentary pleasure enough to contribute to the pain of other animals?”

    Uh. Yes? Welcome to reality.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  • Will T. says:

    The face on that plate of bacon should be the farmer that worked his a– off to provide it to you.

    I could maybe at least understand an argument from an environmental perspective to change how we produce meat, but your argument that we shouldn’t eat meat because animals deserve the same rights as humans is utterly incomprehensible.

    Honestly, your thought process is the same as eight year-old kids who decide to become vegan.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4

    • anonymous says:

      “the farmer that worked his a– off to provide it to you.”

      Really? And you’re calling her naive? Do you have any idea how factory farming works in this country? This “farmer” of yore that you reference does not exist. Instead we have a system that brutalizes both the animals and the workers who slaughter them (give Eating Animals a read)

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

      • Will T. says:

        Yes, my family is in agriculture and I personally know many pig farmers, and many cattlemen. How many do you know? How many feedlots have you ever stepped foot on?

        What workers are you talking about? The illegal aliens who are given a way out and a way to provide for their families?

        I don’t need to read a book to understand what I’ve experienced first hand. I’m glad you know so much more than me because you read some d— book.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

        • anonymous says:

          Unless that T stands for Smithfield (far and away a top producer), then the vast majority of the bacon showing up on your plate is not from your small town operation.

          “Given” a way out? You mean exploited? “Disposable” (read unions forbidden), minimum-wage jobs, unsafe/PTSD-inducing work conditions.. I could go on.

          And, no, I haven’t stepped foot in a feedlot. But, from the sounds of it, you haven’t been where the vast, vast majority of slaughter happens either.

          http://www.foodispower.org/slaughterhouse_workers.php

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

8 Comments Add your comment
Student Life | The independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis since 1878