Can a vegan have a relationship with a meat eater?

My boyfriend is discreet with his meat consumption and as a former vegetarian, he is very respectful of my views. This can mean using seperate cutting boards and knives to prepare his meal and mine, as to not contaminate my dish, or eating mostly vegetarian meals with me when he's at my house, though I do let him keep some chicken in the freezer at my place. It has never been a problem in our relationship, but I do eat some seafood and I'm not a vegan, and he knows not to come too close if he has burger breath. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

FYI, link to the Ms. Communicate column in question [url=http://www.rabble.ca/now_what.shtml?x=69940]here.[/url]

I'm an omnivore. I've been vegetarian and tried being vegan (never felt worse in my life, so left off), and I even like most vegetarian foods. That being said, I couldn't live with a vegan. It would be bound to come up at some point and I can't see it going well. I have a thing about fussiness, and food restrictions are often fraught with varying levels of fussing. I lived with a man who eschewed onion and garlic for a few years, and by the end of it I was itching to slip 'em into everything.

Chalk it up to a character flaw on my part, but it'd drive me batty to have to worry about cutting boards and knives, or two different meals at a time. And the philosophical aspects of veganism vs omnivorism could not help but grate, eventually.

quote:

---

though I do let him keep some chicken in the freezer at my place.

---

Hahaha. Kind of hard isn't it? My boyfriend showed up at my door one day with a huge hunk of frozen deer thigh. For me, it was completely gross but I had to think about in the context of my family. My brother often hunts with his grandfather on the reserve so I have an understanding of hunting for necessity. I had to think of it that way although we do have two freezers, one for meat stuff (which my boyfriend doesn't eat much of at home since we eat generally vegetarian food), and one for veggie stuff.

My mom is the queen of pissing people off at Subway or Mr. Sub. She asks them to change their gloves before making her veggie sub because she doesn't want the meat-infested gloves touching her sandwich. You wouldn't believe the dirty looks she receives.

I could date a vegan. But would a vegan date me?

Michelle, does this mean there's hope for my hopeless crush? If only I'd known you were so, ahem, flexible... ;]

Back in my hippy days when I lived in a commune, there were two women residents who cooked almost exclusively vegetarian, and I learned from them, but I have found that unless I am with someone who is totally devoted to vegetarianism I quickly forget how to make delicious vegetarian meals. In my lifetime I haven't met very many vegetarians - maybe a dozen, maybe slightly more. I've never met anyone who called themselves a vegan. Here on the Quebec coast, there are no vegetarians as far as I know - these are fishing communities, and most are descended from English, French, and aboriginal ancestry - mostly meat eaters, in other words. Even in 2008, here on the coast, learned vegetarians and vegans are non-existent. I'd love to have a vegetarian companion to teach me better (and healthier) vegetarian cooking, but, realistically, that's unlikely to happen, as our variety of veggie foodstuffs is quite limited.

I'm not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian and I try hard to limit the amount of animal products I consume. My partner is the same. My friends are all meat eaters, but I honestly don't know if I could be romantically involved with a meat eater. My vegetarianism isn't designed to improve my health, it's a response to our monstrous exploitation of animals. Being romantically involved with a meat eater would, for me, be similar to being romantically involved with someone who is unapologetically racist. Among other things, a relationship is a crucible for the distillation of character and virtue--we love partly because in loving, we refine the best parts of ourselves. That can't happen if our partner regularly violates our core ethical principles.

Timebandit: I'm curious about those flaws in the argument. Do fill me in.

Actually, the argument against eating animals isn't arbitrary and it's not about rights.

Bioethicist Peter Singer, using a standard utilitarian framework, argues that while "rights" are impossible to determine, "interests" are self-evident. Anything that feels pleasure and pain has interests: while "rights" may or may not exist, it's undeniably in the interests of a sentient being to avoid pain and experience pleasure.

As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another.

In saying this, Singer distinguishes between minor interests and major ones: minor interests are those that are essentially conveniences, while major interests are questions of life-and-death. With animals, we routinely sacrifice their major interests to serve our minor interests. From a utilitarian perspective, that's deeply immoral.

In other words, the moral issues around animal exploitation aren't terribly axiomatic, except in as much as ethics themselves are axiomatic.

[ 17 May 2008: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]
As a utilitarian, he argues that, from a disinterested standpoint, it's irrational and unethical to arbitrarily prioritize the interests of one sentient being over the interets of another. [/b]

---

Isn't Peter Singer the guy who approves of sex between humans and other animals?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b]...he thinks sexual acts between humans and animals are fine, as long as the animal does not suffer...[/b]

---

To be fair, he would not want the human to suffer, either.

Peter Singer, by the way is a devout atheist.

It's always been one of my personal favourites.

Could be, but the person denouncing him has said something just as heinous:

quote:

---

It is sad that just as Dr. Kevorkian has finally been recognized in a court of law as being a criminal for acting on the basis of similar beliefs in the case of physician assisted suicide, Princeton sees fit to hire a proponent of infanticide to teach ethics to undergraduates.

---

This is vile and no progressive person should have anything to do with someone who would force me (or anyone else) to live against our will in the face of horrible suffering. Fuck pro-lifers!

She sounds like one of those shitheads who would keep people "alive" attached to a machine for 50 years. Just as repugnant, that, as deliberately killing a less-than-perfect child.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]The 'disinterested standpoint' from which the interests of all sentient creatures are equal is arbitrary on its own. There are other internally consistent ethical frameworks that don't start there.[/b]

---

Actually, I'm not sure of that. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I've read quite a bit about ethics, and, when it comes to the subject of animals, I haven't yet found an ethical framework as consistent and comprehensive as Singer's.

And, yes, Singer is an atheist, and a much better one than people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.

Timebandit: I'm not drawing from Singer's sound bites, which are typically conclusions bereft of the arguments supporting them. Singer's Animal Liberation provides those arguments, and they're rather sound.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again.

As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating.

Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.

Yes, that is deeply wrong, and very different from those cases of massive and multiple damage that create a baby that can have no self-awareness or quality of life.

Not the case for people with Downs, unless it is only one of many factors.

I'm not actually opposed to all eugenics - prenatal and even pre-conception testing for genetic diseases can be a great boon. And no, I would not condemn a mother for aborting a foetus carrying Downs, Spina Bifida etc.

But people born with such conditions should receive good care and education.

There was the famous story of the food co-op in Toronto (this is a true story, but it might be 30 years ago) that had a cat to kill vermin that ate its organic grains. A hardcore vegetarian faction voted to move out the cat, and of course the organic grains became infested. What to do? Spray them? Set down poison? Bring back the cat?

I don't like being lumped in with extremists, so I would appreciate no one generalizing about people's food choices. Especially if they have no clue what is behind them.

Also, I should add that mt belief system certainly does see morality in nature.

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]Timebandit: I'm not drawing from Singer's sound bites, which are typically conclusions bereft of the arguments supporting them. Singer's Animal Liberation provides those arguments, and they're rather sound.

Now, as for sex with animals that doesn't cause them suffering (which, remember, is a small subset of acts of bestiality, the majority of which undoubtedly cause animal suffering), I honestly believe that this is a rather trivial ethical issue when compared with the issue of eating animals. It's that whole major interest/minor interest thing again. [/b]

---

What you've written above is an exhibit of cherry-picking. And again, if you've read Animal Liberation, you should also understand that Singer didn't actually say "don't eat meat". So you are, in fact, cherry-picking what suits your own viewpoint and ignoring the rest as "trivial".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b] As for our evolution as omnivores, it seems rather obvious that although we can eat meat, the very fact that we're omnivores means that we don't need to eat meat. Indeed, we can be very healthy without it, especially given the number of meat-related diseases out there and the ecological damage being done to our planet by meat-eating. [/b]

---

Farmpunk has already mentioned that there is a flaw in the "meat is bad for the environment argument". It's definitely flawed. Feed lots and large industrial meat production is not environmentally sound, however you don't leave room for other sustainable options. You've framed it as an either/or, binary, black vs white sort of thing and it isn't. For example, I buy meat from local producers (less fuel in shipping) who run smaller operations and raise their meat naturally and in humane conditions.

And for all those vegetarians who like their organic produce, what do you suppose organic growers use to fertilize their fields? Cowshit, last I heard, does not grow on trees. Mixed farming is the most sustainable, not strict vegetable or grain farming. If we want to talk about ecological damage, farming the prairies has been far more destructive than letting it go back to grassland and raising cattle on it would be.

Now, as to health, yes, we can survive on limited diets, but optimal health is achieved by a varied diet. All traditional diets, whether they include meat or not, include some form of animal product. I will agree that the standard North American diet is too meat-heavy, but leaving out some meat can cause some people to have health problems. I do know from personal experience that my endurance and general energy levels are much better when I include meat in my diet. And there is a reason that vegan diets are not generally recommended for children. Most meat-related diseases are related to surfeit rather than moderate consumption, not that meat is consumed AT ALL. Just because fruitarians tend to have wretched states of health is no reason to give up fruit altogether -- if we are to apply your reasoning in another direction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b] Besides, we also evolved as animals prone to rape, murder, slavery, and all sorts of other cruelties that are considered ethically deplorable, regardless of how profitable these acts often are for the people committing them. A tyrant can become very "healthy" by exploiting the bodies and labour of other human beings, which is likely why sociopathy has never been weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Parts of our evolutionary heritage...like sociopathy and our capacity for ethical reasoning...are in conflict with one another, which is only to be expected, given the randomness and complexity of the process. I believe that meat-eating and our capacity for ethical reasoning are also in conflict with one another.[/b]

---

Sure, the logic stands up if you accept the premise. However, I don't think you can equate the financial well-being of a tyrant with the function of the human body. Very different basis. And in choosing your analogies, you're painting with some pretty broad strokes, here, not all of which I think would stand up to closer scrutiny. I disagree with the fact that meat-eating and ethics are somehow mutually exclusive -- as I've written above, we can make choices that minimize cruelty and suffering, choices that most certainly involve ethical reasoning.

But that's just the point of view of a tyrant and sociopath... [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument.[/b]

---

Why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]If it is morally justifiable to eat a pig, why not a 3 or 4 year old human? I am making a deliberately provocative statement. I just want to see if anyone can present a coherent argument.[/b]

---

Singer would say it is, in fact, as morally justifiable.

Yes, your statement is deliberately provocative -- practically trolling. I suppose your point is that pigs have thoughts and feelings, too. Be that as it may, we're ahead of them on the food chain. Sucks if you're the pig, but there it is. Now if you'll kindly keep your moralizing off my plate...

ETA:

quote:

---

People have been discussing animal rights. This is a pretty basic kind of question in that context. A person with an opinion in this area should be able to provide some kind of coherent answer.

---

I try not to "should" all over myself, and would appreciate it if you'd refrain from "shoulding" all over me, too.

I think my posts above have been pretty coherent. Was there something specific that is beyond your ken?

[ 19 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

Timebandit: I think you're presupposing what you seek to prove.

We are on the top of the food chain...except, of course, for bacteria...but that's hardly a natural given. We are on top of the food chain these days because our technology and social organization makes us very powerful. In contrast, at one time we weren't powerful, and so therefore we were prey, way down on the food chain.

So what? You can't get an "ought" from an "is". After all, for quite some time the West has been on top of the world's political and economic hierarchy. Does this mean that, ethically, we should be, and that we can console our conscience by saying that while this arrangement "sucks" for Africans, Asians, etc, that's just the way it is? Remember that for many people, this is exactly the logic they use to justify unjust social arrangements.

In other words, we need to ask whether our current power structure in any way justifies itself.

As for my tyranny comment: people who are able to hoard the resources of others' labour are certainly healthier than those who can't. Tyranny and sociopathy--such as the tyranny and sociopathy that has produced the global distribution of wealth--have very direct consequences for the health of those affected by these evils, both as benefactors and victims.

Health is, for this reason, largely socially constructed, and therefore questions of optimal health for a given population (classes, nations, ethnicities, species) are themselves subject to ethical criticism. For the benefactors of the global economic hierarchy, this arrangement certainly produces "optimal" health--but does this mean it's just?

This is directly relevant for meat-eating. We are able to consume so much meat because we have the power to super-exploit other species, without having to worry about being prey ourselves (well, except when it comes to bacteria). Our factory farms are expressions of this super-exploitation, just as sweatshops in the global south are expressions of economic super-exploitation. The fact that we could have a more "just" system of meat-eating...one that gave animals a fighting chance, for instance...is, given the way our society is currently structured, irrelevant: we could also have a more "just" global economic system in which products were produced in non-sweatshop conditions, but as long as we have this particular global economic system we have to seriously consider the ethical ramifications of, for example, our purchases from stores that depend on sweatshop labour.

Of course, animals are incapable of either considering the ethical dimensions of our meat industry or treating us ethically. Humans, however, have the capacity for ethical deliberation, and we typically see that capacity as being the highest expression of our humanity. To exclude animals from our sphere of ethical consideration, and to subject them to super-exploitation simply because of their membership in species incapable of what we consider rational thought, betrays this capacity and thereby debases us.

It also raises a host of ethical problems. If animals are fair game for super-exploitation because they aren't rational, then what of human beings who are incapable of rational thought (like people with profound developmental disorders or senility)? If we decide that rationality isn't the criteria that we use to separate those who are fair game from those who aren't, then what criteria should we use? Membership in a species? This strikes me as being arbitrary, and a slippery slope, because this is an arbitrary contraction of our ethical universe. If membership in a species justifies super-exploitation for tautological reasons ("all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation because all 'A's are vulnerable to super-exploitation"), then why not use the same logic to distinguish among various human communities?

There is also a psychological cost here. The moment we declare that sentience is irrelevant when deciding whether or not a given entity is fair game for super-exploitation, we decide to numb our capacity for empathy. While this numbing is initially directed towards certain groups, it's all too easy for it to spread to other groups. Consider troubled children who torture animals, and the way this affects their later relationships with human beings. Through the super-exploitation of animals our global community is engaged in a massive project of empathic anaesthetization (anesthetization? sp.). This can't have good consequences.

Finally, regarding your comment about organic farms and cow dung: how much of the food we're producing, and the manure required to grow this food, is devoted to maintaining livestock? How much food could we raise if we decided to make better use of, for example, human waste, or the waste from animals we chose not to slaughter (and treated with greater consideration)?