What Would You Say to a “Compassionate Carnivore?”
Imagine, for a moment, that you knew that on this one particular day, you would have an audience with a larger percentage of people who disagree with you than normal.
Suppose those people claimed to care about animals and the planet, and called themselves "Compassionate Carnivores." These are not people (I don’t think) who joke about bacon being "pig candy," and they realize we must change the way we eat as a nation, and in fact would like their members to pledge to be Veggies in Progress (VIPs).
On the other hand, they include The Niman Ranch Cookbook in their suggested reading list, and there is nothing that speaks to not eating animals on ethical grounds (Matthew Scully’s call for mercy is from a standpoint of us being good stewards of those we reign over), so I’m not sure why they even want people to be VIPs.
I don’t understand exactly where they stand, and I’m not kidding.
But who cares about me.
What kind, articulate message would you send to such "compassionate carnivores" (and yes, I did call such people delusional carnivores earlier this week)?
I guess if I could ask them a question, I’d ask: Do you honestly think that you can use the word compassion when you’re talking about breeding, dominating and slaughtering sentient beings without necessity? Do you honestly think it’s right (/moral/ethical/just) to do such things?
Okay, that’s two questions.
If I could send a message, it would be: I was where you are, once. I thought that we should go back to family farms, where animals might have the opportunity once or twice to procreate when they wanted to, or to roll in the grass under the light of the sun, or to eat what they were intended to eat. And when we eventually slaughtered them, we should do it in the kindest way possible.
This is all while I was going vegan.
But I couldn’t go vegan fast enough once I got honest with myself and admitted that the phrase "when we eventually slaughtered them, we should do it in the kindest way possible" is ridiculous if you don’t have to kill someone in the first place.
And once I learned that there’s no such thing as an egg produced outside of the context of the slaughter of baby males and all spent hens; or milk produced without forced insemination, slaughter of the babies for veal, and slaughter of the cow, who spent too much of her life pregnant, I became even more adamant about my choice to go vegan.
I guess I’d say: Is the taste the milk from another species, or the flesh from the breast of another species, worth everything you have to do to those individuals to get their milk and their flesh? What is the cost to your conscience? Are you thinking critically
about all that goes into using animals when you don’t need to, or are you just trying to find a justification for continuing to use them?
What would YOU say to well-meaning people who call themselves compassionate carnivores?
I would say that you can call yourself whatever you want, but just because you have a self-invented tag line like “Compassionate Carnivore” doesn’t entail that it isn’t nonsense. I can call myself a “Compassionate Killer”; a “Gentle Genocidist”; or a “Happy Angry Man”, but it rings just a little hollow. How about being honest with yourself? You would like to “be the compassionate personality” and have “compassion” in your self-portrait, but you’re not willing to be the kind of person who lives the self-portrait. You won’t walk the talk. It’s all a façade. There’s no substance. It’s all about the marketing tag line, not about the product. To put it bluntly, and perhaps crudely, you’re polishing a loaf of dung.
"I guess if I could ask them a question, I'd ask: Do you honestly think that you can use the word compassion when you're talking about breeding, dominating and slaughtering sentient beings without necessity?"
You're basing your argument on a false, or at best dubious, premise, Dr.Martin. How can you make a blanket, black and white inference that consumption of animal products is always unnecessary? Such an inference is irrational. Since Homo sapiens has been formed by millions of years of evolution to be a biological omnivore, rather than an herbivore, and since there are differences between individual people as well as different racial and ethic groups, the implication that there is one dietary system ( veganism ) that fits all the billions of individual humans in the world equally well rings rather absurd when one thinks about it. There are also the testimonies from former vegetarians or vegans, who, either on their own, or on the advice of a physician ( who are scientifically trained and generally don't have an emotionally-based, ideological dietary ax to grind ) went back to being omnivores and have seen a positive affect on their health, well-being, and vitality. When you add those things together, the idea that veganism is a one-size-fits-all dietary system for the whole of the human race doesn't seem particularly rational. I'm not sure how you can speak about critical thinking with a straight face when you make such blanket inferences that are obviously absurd when one looks below the surface.
Grizzlybear,
I'm not sure why a hunter and self-proclaimed speciesist keeps commenting here. I'll keep it short as my time is valuable:
In 2008 in the developed world, at least according to my extended social circle, which is filled with MDs, nutritionists, biochemists and osteopaths, there has yet to be one human being under the care of any of them who needs to eat animal products.
If people want to eat animals, they'll come up with all kinds of reasons to do so, and they can always find a doctor to say they must go back to being an omnivore.
It is not me who is absurd.
And by the way, we do not match up with omnivores in terms of our anatomy: http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/wiki/index.php?title=Taxonomy
It's impossible to be compassionate and an omnivore. When consuming animal products, you are participating in violence.
If you define compassion as an ability to feel empathy then yes, one can be compassionate and an omnivore. Whether a vegan wishes to engage in constructive dialogue with such a person is their choice, be it for the purpose of understanding their position or changing it. If the goal is understanding, as a final or initial step, the first thing to say might be a question.
The ability to feel empathy is nearly ubiquitous, and not very pertinent. The question is: What do we *do* with our empathy? How is it structured, and translated into action?
If any non-vegan individual approached me and claimed the ability to feel empathy… so what? Their empathy either doesn't extend to non-human animals (unlikely), or they need to seriously question and rethink the relationship between their behaviors and their beliefs.
If you define love as the ability to feel respect and fondness for someone, and person-X claims this ability, can person-X love their parent(s), yet disparage and physically abuse them at every opportunity? Not without contorting the word love beyond recognition.
Welfarist thought and policy has contorted "compassion" beyond recognition. From my perspective, a compassionate human would necessarily oppose the enslavement and torture of non-human animals, unequivocally and non-consequentially. Similarly, any cogent interpretation of "love" will necessarily rule out person-X disparaging and abusing their parent(s).
As it stands now, tweaking the treatment of our domesticated non-human slaves (no matter how trivially) will result in praise/recognition (VICTORY!!!), and often special labeling applied to the end "product".
The *ability* to feel empathy is not a "get out of jail free card" (so to speak) when we are discussing an ethical transgression… be it sexual assaulting another human, or subjugating a cow such that you may consume her milk in place of her calves. I suspect that most humans who sexually assault other humans, possess the ability to feel empathy, just as I suspect that most humans who drink non-human milk can feel empathy. But it is irrelevant to the assessment of those particular rights violations. In other words, they have a funny way of showing it.
I know how everyone here just loves this "compassionate carnviore" Susan Bourette person…..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051300581.html
Guess when you say what "they" want to hear they give you all the press you can stand.
Thanks for the heads-up, Bea.
These “conscientious carnivores” (or whatever) are a psychological hoot if you ignore the suffering they create with their decision to stamp their feet, cover their ears, and chant their mantra, “I DON’T have cognitive dissonance! I DON’T have cognitive dissonance! I DON’T have cognitive dissonance! I’m PROUD to kill and eat innocent beings! I’m PROUD to kill and eat innocent beings! I’m PROUD to kill and eat innocent beings!”
Ah, the power of “positive” thinking and self-deception. What other atrocities can we ignore and/or contribute to by deluding ourselves and insisting, irrationally, they’re not so bad?
Perhaps if these people put half as much energy into cultivating empathy as they do fighting their cognitive dissonance, they might have a much easier time going vegan and could eliminate a lot of their mind clutter and internal strife (which is evident by their writing).
Bea,
I am so disgusted by the series of books that have been–and will be–hitting the shelves. These people are delusional. They are lying to themselves. They will do and say whatever they need to to justify what they feel like eating–it's as simple as that. Anyone who has doubted that welfare reforms AREN'T the way to achieve abolition and make people more comfortable about eating meat shouldn't have such doubts anymore.
I came to full appreciation of what some will do to rationalize or avoid the subject. Recently, speaking with an acquaintance, ("mature" 50 year old adult), I mentioned dairy calves and "cheese" in the same sentence – Hysterically, she cupped her hands over her ears (like a 3 year old) and repeated a chant: "I don't want to know", "I don't want to know", "I don't want to know". She will be the first to read these compassionate carnivore books I'm sure….
Here's where "happy meat" is going these days:
NBC's Al Roker is on the road with the Food Network
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_sp/episode/0,1976,FOOD_9994_36582,00.html
The Dali Lama and Pope have an appetite for baby calves too:
http://www.holyveal.com/
We have hats and necklaces made of animal flesh and flowers made of "ham":
http://www.meatpaper.com/#
and finally: http://www.compassionate-carnivores.org/
whose mission is to "To reduce the suffering of animals raised for our food" and "to educate consumers about the inhumane practices of Factory Farms & supports the Family Farm method of raising animals for food."
Oh yes – and they suggest going without meat one day a week.
And here I thought I was being "compassionate" by wearing cloth hats and obstaining from all animal products, all the time! Geeze – I'm just another silly vegan commited to consistent ethics!
Well, I can't let this one go either…. Here's another "happy meat" grower -the scene is set on an idylic farm: oooops! watch now, we don't want to run over those free roaming chickens – (there not due for slaughter for a few weeks yet -(wink)….. So healthy these animals are! So hormone free! So "gosh aren't we the wonderful absolved?" – Doing our best to care for these animals and willing to pay a whole 41% more per pound for their flesh! Happy, happy!
"Mindful Meat" –
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/FEATURES08/805210367