欧宝娱乐

Greg's Reviews > Eating Animals

Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
262254
's review

really liked it
bookshelves: general-non-fiction

I鈥檝e been a vegetarian for a few years now, and it was a long process that brought me here (literally too, I didn鈥檛 go cold turkey). I鈥檓 sometimes surprised by how little I thought about certain things throughout my life. And coming from someone who grew up with a face in a book, and his head in the clouds, I find this interesting. I over-thought and over-analyzed everything (or at least everything I thought about). I spent my days thinking about fantasy worlds and the future, about girls and relationships (of which I was not very adept at having), about what ifs and what could bes. I thought. I was philosophizing about the universe, and society, and the self long before I knew I was even doing it. And yet even with everything I thought about, there was so much that I never questioned, that I just took for granted.

The state of consumerism in our society makes it very easy for us to not question certain things (though I certainly can鈥檛 blame my choices on "the system"). We are so far removed from the process that brings things to our doorsteps and our dinner tables, that it usually takes an effort to even begin contemplating it. How many of us question where our tvs and laptops came from, how that cup of coffee got in our hands, who made the sneakers we鈥檙e wearing and how did this food got on our plates? I certainly didn鈥檛. And yet when we start asking ourselves these questions they become hard to ignore. That last of those questions becomes most salient when we start asking, 鈥渨hat鈥� was this food before it got to our plates?

I imagine many children one day suddenly realize they鈥檙e eating Babe for dinner and ask their parents why. Their parents probably tell them not to worry about it, and to finish their dinner, and most of them do, end of story鈥egetarianism averted. I was recently shocked to learn that as a child I actually went vegetarian for a year or two (I vaguely recall this). Without any real explanation to my mom, I just refused to eat any meat. When I started again, it was sparingly (once a week), and never ventured out past a few staple meats. I never ate pork (jewish schooling gave me an aversion to it, even though my family didn't keep kosher), I refused to eat seafood (it was gross), and mainly stuck with chicken and turkey. Even when I started eating steak I had to eat it well done. Thinking about it now I like to tell myself that deep down I knew what I was doing was wrong. That I didn鈥檛 eat seafood because it still too closely resembled the animal it had been before, that I couldn鈥檛 eat rare meat because the blood reminded me of what I was eating, and that I felt too sorry for all the other animals to eat them. This probably isn鈥檛 that unlikely, but I wouldn鈥檛 steak my life on it (pun intended), my general pickiness as an eater is kind of damning for my 鈥淚 was ethical but didn鈥檛 know it鈥� theory.

As an adult, the more I thought about the life and suffering of the animals that were sacrificed for my meal, the harder it became to continue eating them. I never watched any of those horrible factory farming videos, I didn鈥檛 have to, though I had some idea of the content. Having seen these videos now, I only wish someone had shown them when I was 15 because I would have been a vegetarian for 15 years now, rather than three. I鈥檓 sometimes baffled by individuals that are aware of the practices involved in the meat industry, but continue to support it (with their dollars and their dinners). I imagine there are two types. One intellectually believes they shouldn鈥檛 be eating meat anymore, but is held back from making the choice. I understand this state of being. I lived it. I struggled most of my life with acting on, and making a reality, my inner beliefs. How often do we say we鈥檙e going to start working out, or stop wasting time on this or that, and we never do it. I fully empathize with this predicament.

Then there are those who understand the system, but who don鈥檛 care, or don鈥檛 agree it鈥檚 wrong in any way. This second case is more baffling, though it shouldn鈥檛 be. The human ability to engage in cognitive dissonance (is that something you engage in?) is truly amazing. I鈥檓 sure there were plenty of good and kind people who owned slaves, men who value loyalty above all else but cheat on their wives, and though I doubt anyone reading this would rob a bank, how many of us have cheated on our taxes or stolen something from work? I imagine this second case consists of people who understand what鈥檚 involved in the meat industry, but don鈥檛 think that animals feel pain like us, or that their suffering is like that of a machine or a bug. Or who maybe buy into the fallacy that we need to eat all that meat to fulfill our protein requirements (I should note I鈥檓 not a vegan yet). Whatever it is, they feel the positives of eating that food outweighs any negatives involved in bringing it to their plate.

As if this wasn鈥檛 enough, the more I thought about the chemicals we pump into these animals, and the damage done to our environment and the resources we consume in feeding, housing, raising, processing, and transporting our food, I just couldn鈥檛 justify taking part in it anymore. The only thing left is the 鈥渂ut it tastes good鈥� philosophy, and I really do struggle sometimes to find sympathy for it. It鈥檚 worth noting I鈥檓 not the kind of vegetarian who is against the idea of eating meat in theory (it鈥檚 just dead flesh), but given the realities of our system I don鈥檛 find I have another choice for myself.

I鈥檝e always been an animal lover and the happenstance of our willingness to eat Porky but not Skippy strikes me as odd. This has been another tough part of society for me to come to grips with. As someone who wants to work in cognitive science, and who owns and loves two ferrets, I have to wrestle with the fact that much neuroscientific research is done on ferrets. We live in a world of contradictions and hypocrisies and this is not on the verge of changing any time soon. And I guess we each have to ask ourselves, how far are we willing to go to break out of the system and act on our beliefs?

I didn鈥檛 intend for this book review to turn into a story about me, but I think it鈥檚 a fitting way to write about a Jonathon Safran Foer book. Foer can weave a sad, funny, and heartbreaking story in beautiful prose like it's spilling out of his mouth. His stories are fantasy, but they are also personal journeys. In a way this book was about his personal journey to becoming a vegetarian, and the case he makes for it. I can鈥檛 think of a better way to recommend this book than to tell you about the personal journey I took, and direct you to Eating Animals if you want to read a thorough case for it, written by someone with more talent than yours truly, and an amazing ability to be frank, and yet empathetic and non-judgmental at the same time.. I should warn readers though, I only vaguely mention the fact that there are many problems with the meat industry, Foer goes into much more specific detail about these practices. If you're a squeamish person, you may have serious problems getting through this book. One half of me wants to tell you to not read this book to protect you, and the other half wants you to go through that if it makes you take stock afterwards...
46 likes ·  鈭� flag

Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read Eating Animals.
Sign In 禄

Reading Progress

January 13, 2010 – Shelved
March 31, 2010 – Shelved as: general-non-fiction
Started Reading
April 1, 2010 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-50 of 129 (129 new)


trivialchemy How is the need to intake sufficient protein a fallacy?

If what you mean is that lots of people eat more protein than they need and could be quite healthy (even healthier) with less, that's fine, but doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful. Lots of people could eat less food period and be a lot healthier, and instead they weight 400 pounds and carry themselves around in electric wheelchairs.

If your point is that people really don't need protein and it's a simple matter to support robust healthfulness up to and including an optimum level of athletic activity upon which the human body flourishes, on a diet of only plant matter, then I'd say you're crazy and wrong. Not because it's not possible, mind you, but because it's not simple.

The case you're missing in your analysis is the case of the person who understands the system, has analyzed the system, correctly identifies and meditates upon its wrongfulness, but also recognizes that all life in modern society is a series of compromises into which one has been thrust and to which there is no single set of right answers. The American agricultural system wreaks its own manner of environmental degradation, for example. Unless you're prepared to grow and hunt all of your own food, you are always going to be an unwilling participant in a system that in a very important sense owns you. So what level of compromise do you want to make? Some people choose not to go fully vegetarian because the cost to other things -- in particular, the expenditure of time/effort required in order to maintain the level of human health, vitality, and athletic vigor necessary for personal well-being -- is simply too high.

I just don't see this as a question of right or wrong. It's a question of where did you draw your line, and where did I draw mine. And why did you draw it there? Are you conscious of having drawn it there and can you make peace with that compromise giving the context of civilized life as an unending sequence of undesirable compromises?


message 2: by Greg (last edited Sep 16, 2010 03:17PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Thanks for positive feedback Caris!

Isaiah you said,

"How is the need to intake sufficient protein a fallacy?"


I think you just misread me there. Or possibly I could've worded that line better. What I said was:

"who maybe buy into the fallacy that we need to eat all that meat for protein"


and what I meant by that line is that one of the first things people say to you when they find out you're a vegetarian is "what do you do for protein", because there is a very prevalent myth that a plant based diet cannot provide the adequate amount and types of protein needed for healthiness. My response to that has a few aspects to it. One is, as you mention, the average meat eater consumes way more meat than is necessary from a purely protein standpoint. Two, a plant based diet does indeed provide all the protein you need as long as you are cognizant of what you are eating and what nutrients it contains. Three, one big argument from meat eaters is the B12 issue. That while rice and beans and lentils, etc...can provide all the needed amino acids, they can't provide B12. As I noted, I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan), meaning I still consume dairy, and get more than enough B12 in this way (I gave up eggs, and rarely drink milk, but cheese...man oh man...I can't give up cheese). But from what I've been able to gather about B12, neither plants nor animals naturally produce it, and that it actually is synthesized by bacteria, though meat and dairy is the only reliable way to get it. Apparently crops grown in certain soil can provide B12, but I imagine most vegans would want to ensure healthy levels with a supplement or some sort of vegan processed food.

"The case you're missing in your analysis is the case of the person who understands the system, has analyzed the system, correctly identifies and meditates upon its wrongfulness, but also recognizes that all life in modern society is a series of compromises into which one has been thrust and to which there is no single set of right answers."


I haven't missed that case, what I am saying is that someone who has gone through that whole process and still chosen to eat meat is someone who I can't understand. I have friends like that. My housemate is like that. For whatever reasons, these individuals have decided that the choice to eat or not eat meat still tips in favor of meat eating. I'm not trying to stick it to you here or anything, but I find that those who make that choice, with all the relevant knowledge in hand, are rationalizing their desire to not change and to continue to experience something they enjoy. I've heard from people's lips, "yeah, the whole system is fucked, so why bother trying to change it."

"Unless you're prepared to grow and hunt all of your own food, you are always going to be an unwilling participant in a system that in a very important sense owns you. "


Sure, I agree. I can only speak for myself, but my personal philosophy is one of harm reduction, rather than "do no harm". Vegetarianism was just one choice I made in my life to fulfill this philosophy. Others include shopping at local farmers markets as often as possible. And that's just in relation to food. I also try to buy my clothing second hand or from companies whose labor practices are transparent, etc...but there is something fundamental you're leaving out, which you may disagree with, but none the less. I find that harm caused to conscious life trumps harm done to non conscious life, all things being equal (or to be more particular, harm done to organisms capable of suffering). So if both the meat and agriculture systems cause environmental harm lets say, I'm going to choose the system that causes less overall harm.

I think either you're off base about this not being a question of right or wrong, or we're having a semantic quibble. But it seems to me that either it's obviously a question of right or wrong, or NOTHING is a question of right or wrong. i.e. - Whether someone steals money from the bank or murders a neighbor isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a question of where you draw the line. I can't get behind that, sure, there are varying degrees of right or wrong decisions, but that doesn't mean those decisions fall outside the realm of ethics.


Greg hah, great analogy D!


trivialchemy "And the argument that the vegetable raising industry is just as bad as the meat industry is just pernicious and wrong. "

And of course no one said anything even close to that.

The big stuff I don't have time to respond to right now.


Meredith Holley I like the review a lot, Greg! Some of the girls on here and I were just having this conversation yesterday, but we all agreed. Where were you when we needed a dissenter, Isaiah?!


trivialchemy D-Pow, I love you but are you absolutely serious right now? Did you even read my post? I'm emphasizing all of the moral compromises that must be made by virtue of being born in a Western techno-industrialist society. I point out that even something as innocent as eating vegetables entails its own sorts of compromises. I abso-fucking-lutely did NOT equate the vegetable industry and the meat industry in any way, shape or form. To imply I did is either insulting or severely lacking in critical reading ability.


message 7: by Duffy (new)

Duffy Pratt How about the evolutionary argument. If not for the human use of animal products, many if not most of the domesticated farm animal species would now be extinct. Thus, getting slaughtered for human consumption is actually the survival strategy for those species. I'm not sure that I could prove it, but it raises an interesting ethical dilemma. Is it worse to cause the individual suffering of a whole bunch of animals and ensure the continued survival of the species, or to wipe out the species altogether?


trivialchemy Okay, I'm being a dick, and that was probably not necessary. Sorry. But I maintain my point.


trivialchemy Meredith wrote: "I like the review a lot, Greg! Some of the girls on here and I were just having this conversation yesterday, but we all agreed. Where were you when we needed a dissenter, Isaiah?!"

Incidentally, I pretty much agree with everything Greg said. I thought it was a great book and a great review. I just happen to think that the view is narrow, that's all. It seems to me that vegetarians believe themselves to have this moral clarity about an issue that is deeply ambiguous and goes to the heart of what it means to be human and what it means to be a modern man. Viewing this issue as cut and dry: eating animals = bad, is an easy way to feel self-evidently righteous on a platform of feigned simplicity (like the simple Republican platform "raising taxes = bad"), but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth of how man then should live. It just makes some people "right" and some people "wrong."


Meredith Holley I think that's true, but I do think that factory farms are pretty undeniably bad. I, honestly, don't think that eating animals is bad, but I think that torturing them is, and I think that it's bad for people to work torturing animals.

Personally, I did feel, when I finally decided to go veggie, like I had been justifying my decision to keep eating meat. And I don't think I was doing it because the world is complex; I think I was doing it because hamburgers taste good, and it was convenient. I had a lot of the dissonance that Greg is talking about. I don't really understand how you could know about factory farms and not have dissonance eating food that comes from them, but maybe there is a good explanation, like Greg's asking.


message 11: by Greg (last edited Sep 17, 2010 06:40AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg ack! Where the hell did all you people come from? :)

re: the evolutionary argument

I don't find that argument very convincing for a few reasons Duffy.

1) getting slaughtered is not a survival strategy for the species, it is something we impose on them, which has the secondary effect of keeping the species alive. It's like arguing that slavery kept black people from going extinct, or at the very least suffering starvation in Africa, and was thus good for them.

2) I don't view suffering on the level of the species (unless collective consciousness is real), but rather at the level of the organism. So in essence, I don't think the suffering imposed on any individual animal is lessened by the fact that some far future descendent's of the animal will someday be alive (and also forced to suffer). It's not like we're causing harm now so in the future they'll all be free and happy. The cow's suffering is not assuaged by any of this knowledge (which it is constitutionally unable to have anyway!).

3) Along with this, survival is not inherently meaningful just for the sake of survival. In my opinion, both on a personal level as well as on a species level this holds true. A species going extinct does not cause suffering to the countless members of that species who might have lived had the species not gone extinct! There is nothing inherently wrong with a species dying out, though if this mass death involved lots of suffering I would certainly consider the issue part of the moral domain.

re: right vs. wrong

I just want to note about this conversation, that I'm only engaging in it because of the active and willful participation of everyone else. I don't want to force people to be vegetarian, I don't evangelize to my friends and acquaintances, and I don't even expect people to cater to my needs, though I certainly appreciate it when friends do. I don't look down on people for eating meat. I also agree that morality is rarely ever a black and white issue. It's situation specific and knowledge specific. And so while vegetarianism was the "right" decision for me, it may not be for everybody. The family in Food Inc. who have to choose between fast food hamburgers and medicine for the dad or broccoli, make an obvious choice. But whether the choice is to eat meat or not...it most certainly is a moral issue. My main point is that those who have all the knowledge (and by "all the knowledge", I really mean, ALL the knowledge), and the means, and still choose to eat meat are in my opinion engaging in cognitive dissonance.


message 12: by Aerin (new)

Aerin Very thoughtful and interesting review.


message 13: by Lisa (new) - rated it 5 stars

Lisa Vegan When I was 4 and found out where meat came from and what it was, I was appalled, but I and my parents thought I had to eat it. I also ate flesh in forms that didn't look like the animals! I came to vegetarianism very gradually, and wanted to go vegan almost immediately, and did with non-food items, but it took me 6-1/2 years to fully give up dairy & eggs. I've been vegan now for almost 16 years and I now can't imagine living any other way.

There are some wonderful things about this book. I like Foer's story of how he went vegetarian and why. He's got a great manner of relating, and his book is one of the only such books to have gone mainstream, so that's terrific.

Those of you who went veg as children, that's fantastic! I'd never even heard of vegetarianism until I was 17 and at first I thought it was weird, conveniently forgetting the feelings I'd had at age 4. I now know many people who have been vegan all their lives and I wish I had been one of them.

Interesting review, Greg.


message 14: by Greg (last edited Sep 16, 2010 10:32PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I find it funny that I wrote this review months ago and suddenly today it went absolutely bonkers.

Lisa, I sometimes wonder at myself as a teenager. I *feel* like the same person, and yet, how I interact with the world is so different. I have such respect for people who followed strong moral convictions at such an early age. Whether in regards to vegetarianism or any other cause they embraced. It's not something that entered my conscious thought back then.


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Greg wrote: "Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I find it funny that I wrote this review months ago and suddenly today it went absolutely bonkers."

It's the beauty of this site. One vote for a good review can set off a nice little chain reaction of passing around good and interesting ideas.


message 16: by Greg (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg true, and you're pebble that caused the landslide!


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Yup. Proud pebble I am.


message 18: by Sonia (new)

Sonia Gomes I will say it. We, in our country use terrible methods to kill animals.
Passed by a stall selling mutton, a sheep to be slaughtered cried such an anguished cry, I cannot describe it. I cannot eat lamb or veal, aren't they babies ?
Here in Goa people say today, we got such fresh prawns/ fish that it was flapping around the basket.
I do eat fish, hopping that it is truly dead by the time it reaches my table. Small consolation.
Yes, we are a truly terrible race, forgetting that all life is interconnected.
Loved your review Greg!


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Relevant article popped up in my inbox today:


Meredith Holley Yeah, Foer's book talks a lot about commercial fishing. It's horrible. And have you seen ? I listened to the guy who made it on Fresh Air, but I don't think I can watch the movie. Even the sounds on the radio were too horrifying. The way they kill the dolphins is as horrible to me as the worst stuff in Eating Animals.

But, have you read anything by David James Duncan? Fisherpeople can be the best environmental advocates and animal advocates because they actually go out into nature to feed their families or do a sport they love. It's kind of similar to the ranchers who want to run good ranches. Anyway, I love David James Duncan. I think the fiction that talks most about fishing is The River Why, but his non-fiction talks about it, too. Wait, Caris, didn't I see you review one of his books? Maybe someone else.


Meredith Holley Yeah, he kind of talks about that in The River Why. I mean, it's kind of a coming of age story, so at some point it gets really weird to him that he does that. It's very Oregonian, but I think you would like it. And the Brothers K is one of my all-time favorite books. Duncan is a big environmental activist, and writes really beautifully.


Meredith Holley Yep. And feel free to blame me if you check him out and hate him.


Meredith Holley I'm glad we're on the same page.


Meredith Holley The thing that makes me really concerned about genetically modified food is that the companies patent them. So, then they own a certain type of food and spend a lot of money trying to eradicate the other versions of that product so that theirs is the only one available to consumers. *cough*monsanto.


Meredith Holley I could be wrong, but I feel like Isaiah is saying that systematic change needs to happen instead of random, individualized change, and you can't get super mad at people while they are being basically funneled into destructive behavior.

Jon, are you saying that the natural result of freedom is human suffering and death?


Meredith Holley Oh, is that what you're saying, Jon? I agree. But I think for people who can make a choice, it's our responsibility to be conscious of the choice we make.

Ugh, Caris. But you know that's probably already happening.


Meredith Holley Caris wrote: "Meredith wrote: The horror movie fan in me is giddy as hell at the prospect.

But the guy who actually has to live in this world is hi..."


I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING!! But I couldn't figure out how to say it. Well done.


message 28: by Meredith (last edited Sep 17, 2010 10:04AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Meredith Holley Jon wrote: "Does that mean people only have to make the right decisions if they can afford it?"

No, it means that if people are forced to do harm, they're not culpable for their actions. And I do legitimately think that a lot of people are in positions where they are forced to do harm in the system that we have.

But I think that the majority of Americans have the ability to be vegetarian. Quinoa is a great source of protein and it's hella cheaper than meat. For me, it's cheaper to be vegetarian.


Meredith Holley But, I also think it's a tough decision to eat meat or not, and people on farms or in slaughterhouses being cruel to animals are responsible for their own actions. It took me a long time to become vegetarian and I didn't do it because of people pressuring me to. I'm like Greg, I wouldn't try to force someone to stop eating meat. Except my little brother, but that's just because I try to force him to do everything I want him to do.


message 30: by Greg (last edited Sep 17, 2010 10:09AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Meredith, I love that we're part of a community where you can say you heard something on Fresh Air and expect everyone to understand the reference. :)

I agree with your concerns regarding genetically modified food as well. And I think there are certainly other concerns and issues to take into account. Like the affect on the environment and the ecosystem and whether we fundamentally have the right to alter the genome of unwilling conscious creatures.

But I do want to point out that there is nothing inherent in genetic modification that is wrong, and i'm not saying this to anyone in particular, just feel that it merits being said. There is nothing "unnatural" about it. Evolution IS genetic modification, it just happens to be undirected. And we've engaged in purposeful genetic modification over hundreds and thousands of years of agriculture (and even farming). The genetic modification we speak of today is simply a more direct way of achieving the same ends. How many of us would argue that it is wrong to modify the human genome to eradicate Parkinsons, Alzheimers, MS, and countless other disorders? And though it certainly gets trickier when we talk about mental enhancements, it is also not in theory something to be avoided outright.

Anyway, while in this particular situation I share the concerns regarding these salmon, in general the idea of genetic modification can be a real benefit to society if approached with caution and due diligence.

Jon, others have hit on this point, and I tried to address it above in one of my responses, but I did say that IF someone has the means AND they have all the knowledge, I find it difficult to understand them STILL making the choice to eat meat. Certainly those without the income or those living in areas of the world without other food options who make the choice to eat meat are often times making the only choice they can. Though it's worth noting that some don't. Some see the ethical dilemma and choose to not eat meat at the expense of possibly their health, and *choose* possible personal suffering, because they see the *unwilling* suffering of others as unacceptable.

I've laid out a case for why I believe it is unethical to eat meat, though that case is laced with many contingencies. To someone of the type I mentioned above who has all the knowledge and the means, I would argue that the onus of defending their food choices is on them, and not me. Can you (and I realize I know nothing about you, so feel free to disregard) defend to me your reasons for eating meat? Have I missed something in my arguments that would cause someone who understands all the things I talked about to still choose to eat meat? (besides the situation of those that think they are committing an unethical or hypocritical act but have not yet been able to motivate a behavioral change)


Meredith Holley Jon wrote: "Meredith, with all due respect, and I say this hopefully not offending you with my first interaction with you, but this line of thinking is complete bullshit."

Well, it's the criminal law system, so I suggest filing a complaint with the authorities.

Greg wrote: "But I do want to point out that there is nothing inherent in genetic modification that is wrong, and i'm not saying this to anyone in particular, just feel that it merits being said."

Agreed. Nectarines are yummy. Wolverine is hott.


message 32: by Greg (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Caris wrote: "Do you think this is the case with the salmon example?"


"Anyway, while in this particular situation I share the concerns regarding these salmon"

:)


Meredith Holley I forgot to say that I'm not offended. I'm scrappy and spend most of my day fighting with people.

Also, I feel like maybe what Greg is saying is that people who don't eat meat spend a lot of our time defending our choice to not eat meat, but we're curious about someone who consciously chooses to eat meat? Is it just because it tastes good? Is there a justification for it that we haven't thought of? Correct me if I'm wrong, Greg.


message 34: by Greg (last edited Sep 17, 2010 10:46AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Jon, I don't think your logic holds up. Nothing in my reasons for not eating meat is dogmatic (and if there is, please point it out to me).

And though I am an atheist, I am NOT a moral relativist. Every action you make in life, whether you realize it or not, whether you think about it or not, is an ethical decision. In any given situation you are deciding what is right to do at the moment (though I would argue that some, maybe even many, actions have null ethical content). The entire point of my review is that in our consumerist society it is too easy to not think about the ethical consequences of our decisions. You might not personally take a small child off the street and force him to work 16 hour days in your basement making you a new pair of sneakers, but few people think about that same child on the other side of the world in that very predicament...making their sneakers.

Peter Singer has a famous thought experiment that goes something like this:

You are walking down the street and you notice a child drowning in a small stream. You can jump in and save her, but it will ruin your $500 suit. The vast majority of people would say it would be completely unethical to not save the child so as to not ruin your suit, and you would justifiably be looked at with scorn for making that decision. $500 can also be donated to a charity or given directly to children in dire need are suffering and dieing, and yet, most people would not look with scorn at someone for choosing not to donate that $500.

Peter singer says this is a real problem for our moral systems. And there's all sorts of evolutionary and psychological reasons for why we normally don't view those situations as comparable, which I won't go into now. Now, this idea can certainly be taken to an extreme where someone gives every dollar they have to charity and find themselves now homeless and broke. Peter Singer has decided that giving 25% of his income (I think that's his value) to charity is the most ethical (utilitarian) course of action.

Jon, you don't have to defend your eating choices to me or anyone else. The reason I asked the question is because you came into this thread and argued that I was making a dogmatic unjustified proclamation in regards to the ethics of eating meat. I argued this wasn't so, that my reasons are in no way dogmatic, and I turned the tables so to speak and challenged you to explain why eating meat IS ethical.

Meredith had the gist of what I'm trying to say right. Also, I'm not going to get into it since this post is long enough, but I haven't talked in any way shape or form about what should be the consequences of what I consider to be ethical or unethical acts. This would be a LOOOOONG conversation. But sufficed to say, you are making assumptions about what I believe by imbuing your own view of the consequences of unethical actions. I don't hold all actions to be on equal level (murder is worse than bank robbery which is worse than telling my girlfriend her new haircut looks nice when it doesn't). And in general I feel the judgments about actions should be used to better promote more ethical future actions.

I hope you come back in here Jon, since I spent a bit of time writing this!


Jasmine 1. ferrets are awesome. I am super depressed that they are illegal in new york.

2. I think there is something extremely special about this book. Possibly related to foer's thoughts on how becoming a parent makes you justify your actions as a human being that actually really gets people. I became a vegetarian like 9 months ago when I read this (okay I put it off for a week cause I had to go home to maine and say good bye to eating fish), my friend courtney didn't eat meat for a month, and a friend who's reading it now is reading like one chapter a week because they don't want to stop eating meat.

I mean for me it is especially weird. I never really liked meat, but I also never cared that I was eating babe. I stopped eating pork really young because I got food posioning, but my friends parents killed her pet pig and cooked it and fed it to her and I didn't see any problem with that. clearly this is different than factory farming, but I knew about factory farming (my brother was the kind of kid who becomes a vegetarian for a year and he showed me pictures) and I didn't care. In fact I am a minorly bad person and still don't care that much, but being part of a reasonably apathetic generation I probably wouldn't care all that much if I was being tortured. But somehow this book equated animals with workers unions for me. and there is just an insustainability of mistreatment. It changes the people who do it and the world in ways that I don't think are okay.

perhaps part of the genius of foer's book is that he gives us the opportunity to find our own logics. I am vegetarian for sustainability.

3. I don't understand people who don't eat "meat" but eat fish. I don't know how many people fish the way people do in maine but fish are treated pretty fucking badly. you have the nets and suffocating, or you go fish your self and you kill it by smashing its head in. just sad.

4. as far as the nutrition debate goes research shows eating meat in any large quantity is actually unhealthy and portions should be extremely small, not eating meat is not a big deal. I am far healthier as a vegetarian then I ever was before, although I attribute this to the fact I am forced to actually think about what I eat.

Although vegetarianism does cause weird conversations with my mom where she asks if I eat enough almonds, I tell her I don't like almonds, and she remembers some weird event when I stopped eating peanuts, and I said love almonds.


Meredith Holley Jon wrote: "Good, Meredith. I guess I am uninterested in social culpability right now. we are talking about basics. Right/Wrong. And if you think a person doing harm because they have to is wrong, but is not h..."

So, are you saying that you think that you are as wrong in buying something that is necessary to life, but unbeknown to you was made by enslaved children, as the person enslaving the child? I feel like you're arguing that from any perspective you are basically morally wrong in eating meat because of all of the abuses in the food system. I'm confused.


Meredith Holley Jon wrote: "And if you think a person doing harm because they have to is wrong..."

Oh, I don't think they're wrong.


message 38: by Greg (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg Caris wrote: "Greg, are you suggesting that I should thoroughly read the previous posts before I pose stupid questions? That's assholery at its finest, sir. I am an American and I will not stand for this."

No, you are free to post stupid questions completely unrestrained. In fact, the last thing I expect is for you to be reasonable...in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert:

"Never forget -- 'Reason' is just one letter away from 'Treason.' Coincidence? Reasonable people would say it is, but America can't afford to take that chance."


message 39: by trivialchemy (last edited Sep 17, 2010 11:29AM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

trivialchemy I still think both sides are really talking past each other here. I want to use Jon's original post before he got belligerent and, well, Jon-ish, because I think we were really saying the exact same thing at that moment.

Jon wrote: "And for a person to essentially say my chosen value system that somehow orients my moral compass are so correct I cannot understand others decisions to orient their value systems differently, belies (to me) a myopic worldview that borders on religious dogmatism couched in humanitarianism."

Somehow this got turned into a discussion about whether or not people have the option to go vegetarian by being sufficient wealthy; and if they have the knowledge and the option are they morally culpable, etc. But that's not the point at all. What you're doing is taking this one moral dilemma: should I eat meat or not? and ripping it from its context of ambivalent human beings living complicated lives of refractory value systems, and posing it as a black and white decision. Jon and I are both anxious to compare this to religious thought and the tactics of right-wing populism because we know that everyone in this thread listens to NPR and reads The Atlantic -- and yet the sort of feigned moral clarity that is going on here is precisely the same as the pompous ethical certainty of the highly religious and the right wing's "us or them" mentality:"

"It's simple: are you for or against killing animals?"

But it's not that simple. And I realize that saying it is that simple is an easy way to gain a moral podium; but that's essentially the same phenomenon that gives Glenn Beck an audience.

I want to go back to this idea of "cognitive dissonance" because that phrase kept getting thrown around by team Greg, and I just don't think y'all are saying what you think you're saying.

Do I think factory farming is awful? Yes, absolutely.* You would have to be insane not to think so. I don't need anyone else to tell me that. Do I think animal suffering even under the most humane of conditions is sad? Yes, absolutely. I love most animals more than humans. Hence, do I feel cognitive dissonance when I eat meat? Sure, all the time! Sometimes it's even troubling.

But what, exactly, is the grand indictment you get to make with the "cognitive dissonance" label? I feel cognitive dissonance all the damn time, and I should hope you do too. Why? Because the modern world is a complicated, ambiguous, refractory place and moral clarity is a mirage.

You might be able to argue that driving a car is the worst thing a human being can do. Not just the momentary release of pollutants, but the entire transportation infrastructure is a scourge. It has in its history created a lot of human and animal suffering, and is compounding exponentially. So I hope you feel cognitive dissonance when you drive a car. (If you live in NY you don't count.) I also get drunk all the time. It's unambiguously bad for me. I hurt my body, sabotage my athletic endeavors, get depressed, and say stupid things. But I still drink. I feel cognitive dissonance about that. I feel cognitive dissonance about sleeping with women, too. I don't always do it in the right way, in certain situations it feels manipulative and hurtful, but I still do it. Cognitive dissonance. What about your job? I'll bet almost no one here works for a company that is unambiguously ethical. Be aware that you spend 8+ hours of your day materially in support of whatever your company is doing anywhere in the world. Cognitive dissonance.

So what's the big deal? You think I'm going to see cognitive dissonance and my head will explode? No. I'm aware of the things you're talking about. However, I have weighted my value system different than yours. Every single person in here has to make a thousand moral compromises a day. You do some things this way and some things that way and in the morning you hope you can live with yourself. Looks like so far we've all been able to. But let's not pretend that one ethical dilemma can be isolated, raised above all others, and serve as the platform for moral clarity. If you do that, you're just jerking off in your quinoa casserole.



*Incidentally, I don't even eat factory-farmed meat. The only meat I eat is pasture-raised beef that I buy at a farmer's market direct from the man who raised it. I have visited his farm in Santa Barbara and petted the cows. But I'm trying to argue AGAINST people parading their own ethical choices as emblems of superior value systems, so I would claim that my choice is not relevant to the discussion.


Meredith Holley I agree with that, but maybe not with your attitude problem. I'm remaining neutral on the issue of moral judgment about people jerking off into food.


trivialchemy Wait whose attitude problem? Mine?


Meredith Holley yes, yours.


trivialchemy I don't feel like I have an attitude problem; and I don't see where I've given the impression that I have one. So maybe you can help me out here.


message 44: by Greg (new) - rated it 4 stars

Greg You are again making assumptions Isaiah. I never said the moral quandary of whether to eat meat or not was a black or white issue. I've taken pains to point out there are lots of ins and outs and variables and have tried to refrain from making blanket statements about what I believe every man woman and child should do precisely because context is important. I'm really baffled by some of these accusations.

I've also said I have nothing in principle against the idea of eating meat. If the meat comes from a local source, has not been pumped full of chemicals, had a humane life and was killed humanely 90% of my problems with meat consumption would disappear. Many people get their meat this way and I have few problems with it. I have a philosophy of harm reduction, not "do no harm". Even in this situation I have some lingering problems with meat consumption (for me), which maybe would be assuaged if the animal was only used for food after it died of natural causes. Regardless, because I'm still unsure about this issue, and I tend to err on the side of caution, I wouldn't automatically begin to eat meat if the option was available to me. It's something I would have to think through. Though, as evidenced by the fact that I own pets, I'm obviously not categorically opposed to keeping an animal confined to some area and restricting its "freedoms" in a general sense.

Also, many of your other points are completely valid as well. I bought a bicycle and use it as much as possible and have cut down my need for auto transport by a huge amount. I also own my own business, so those moral issues you brought up aren't as prevalent, though I agree those types of considerations should be taken into account when pursuing work. The rest of your points I would also evaluate similarly. The cognitive dissonance part of it doesn't even need to be brought to bare. Each of those actions can be evaluated for its ethical content, and it could be found to be unethical or not. Off the top of my head I would in general argue that your choice to get drunk and damage your body is not objectively unethical, and only unethical if you follow a moral prescription that says it is, and that manipulating and being hurtful towards others is not ethical.

I don't think I've been making any grand indictments here. I gave my reasons for not eating meat. I've said I oppose forcing others to make the same choices. I've discussed how the nature of certain system makes it hard for individuals to evaluate their actions in the same way they would if they dealt with people individually. I've indicated that my philosophy is one that attempts to minimize harm*, and promote future well being through analysis of current behaviors. You're not required to agree with me. You're not required to stop eating meat, or stop driving your car, or to care about issues that in certain situations you would view as worthy of moral judgment but in other less obvious ones you have decided not to consider. My hope is that through discourse with willing participants people will change their minds. I also hope that through the political system regulations and laws will be put in place to change things that all of us agree cause unnecessary harm. If that's an indictment, so be it.

*notice, I don't single out meat eating and put it above anything else. Meat eating and the system surrounding it is just one of many moral considerations that we happen to be talking about because I reviewed a book about meat eating.


trivialchemy No, Greg, you're right. And I didn't mean for my assumptions/accusations to apply to any one person in my last comment. The "you" there is the proverbial "you:" he that would say these things against which I would argue. And honestly, you are like the least evangelical of all righteous dudes, and I respect that, honestly. I think if we had a civil conversation we would find that our ethics are extremely well-aligned, although on the objective surface most would think that I have made radically different decisions than you.

I guess the part of your review that I have been bristling at continuously is how you seem to imply that someone that is fully aware of all of the issues presented in Foer's book and yet continues to eat meat is somehow confused, or "rationalizing" or copping out. In your first comment to me you wrote:

what I am saying is that someone who has gone through that whole process [of weighting their value system] and still chosen to eat meat is someone who I can't understand. . . . I'm not trying to stick it to you here or anything, but I find that those who make that choice, with all the relevant knowledge in hand, are rationalizing their desire to not change and to continue to experience something they enjoy.

And then, perhaps slightly more inflammatory, you add:

I've heard from people's lips, "yeah, the whole system is fucked, so why bother trying to change it."

But of course the position I am taking is not one of cynicism at all. You might be able to call it "rationalization" but certainly not in the sense of making up spurious justifications in the interest of something fundamentally flawed and selfish, as "I continue to eat meat because it's tasty;" but rather rationalization in the sense that we all most deal with cognitive dissonance and moral inclarity in a complicated and ethically difficult universe.

What I am doing in opposition to this stance is merely stating that the choice to eat meat is not in my view inherently indefensible. It can be a reasonable ethical choice. And it's fine if you don't agree with that. It is the implication that the only way that choice can be made is through the result of confusion, or ignorance, or cynicism that I find to be unjust.


message 46: by 尝补听辫辞颈苍迟别听诲别听濒补听蝉补耻肠别 (last edited Sep 17, 2010 02:15PM) (new)

尝补听辫辞颈苍迟别听诲别听濒补听蝉补耻肠别 Ha. Chinese rooms.

I'm on team Isaiah by the way and I think - I'm sure team Greg will disagree because they are a bunch of self-righteous poseurs; well maybe not all of them but Caris is, I digress - that reason may take a man too far sometimes.

Men! Listen. Everything flows and finds it's level, can you not see that in order to 'minimize harm' you might as well be dead? Greg. I wish I could make you understand that all this highfalutin talk is utter nonsense without falling into some form of regress argument.

Let's not get carried away with high sounding mantras of 'minimizing harm' and what not. :)


trivialchemy Er, I'm not sure if I would like saucy here to speak for team Isaiah.

I'm fairly confident I just offended Meredith somehow, completely unintentionally, and I know I did D-Pow, somewhat intentionally but regrettably, and so I am doing my best to stay civil here. I know people feel strongly about this stuff.

Anyway, Caris, I do think the question is a little bit ironic, because that is precisely what Foer's book is about, isn't it? The very convincing reasons that people have to continue to eat meat in their world views. Now, Foer's position is that these particular reasons are untenable, and he does a very good job showing why. (Which explains why I gave the book 4 stars.) To the generalist, his arguments are pretty convincing, to the vegetarian seeking confirmation of his views, they are solid iron.

However, as someone who is not a generalist, but a specific, living, breathing human being, I will tell you why I personally continue to eat meat.

My principal reason is the one that vegetarians hate most of all, but you asked so I'll say it anyway. My diet is much, much healthier with meat in it.

Please give me the benefit of the doubt here that I am not just some meathead who thinks steak and fries is a totally sick after-workout meal. Eating healthy is extremely important to my well-being and I am profoundly informed on the subjects of diet, athletic performance, and human physiology. The only people I have ever met who eat healthier than me are in my immediate family. My parents ate a raw food diet before any of us were born, and before this stuff was non-heretical and long before it was hip. I was raised vegan for a few years of my life as a small child before my mom gave it up after realizing she could not meet the energy needs of her 4 rambunctious children.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn about my eating habits, but I am trying to explain the knowledge and life experience that has informed my value system.

Anyway, I also maintain an extremely high level of physical activity, sometimes competing at the amateur level. Doing so is one of the three greatest predicates in my life to my sense of well-being. I believe sloth and physical weakness to be one of the principal informants of the contemporary malaise.

So, from my perspective, I have extremely demanding nutritional needs, and extremely discerning requirements on where that nutrition can come from. I have tried to meet these needs on a vegetarian diet. (I went vegetarian for about 2 months after reading this book.) It was possible, but it was extremely difficult. Most importantly, it was incredibly time-consuming. Less importantly, it made me fart. A lot.

I am aware that there are those who maintain the very highest levels of competitive athletic performance on vegan or vegetarian diets. I have researched these people extensively. Unfortunately, they are professionals, and most of their experience doesn't translate well to my own. They train for a living and have the time and professional impetus to plan elaborate diets that meet their energy needs.

So, the point is, while it is possible for me to meet my higher objectives of an extremely clean diet that adequately feeds my athletic performance without eating meat, I am CONSCIOUSLY unwilling to make the compromises which that entails. When I try to do so, my work life suffers, my personal life suffers, and I am punished as a result for a behavior which does not seem to me a necessary maxim. I AM however, willing to make other compromises. Such as refusing to eat factory-farmed meat. I already explained that the only meat I consume comes from cows that I have seen with my own eyes who were raised by a farmer whose hand I shake every Sunday. I do eat seafood, because their neural systems are in a quantifiable way much different than animals that I believe to experience suffering. I avoid farmed seafood because of its environmental impact, not for the well-being of the animals. (I know the proverbial "you" disagrees with this analysis of seafood; let's not make that the point, as I'm not looking for ratification of those views, just explaining them.)

The second big one for me was treated extensively by Foer, and its the social and traditional value of meat consumption. I hope you will agree with me that that was the weakest part of the book. I really thought Foer should have eaten his Grandmother's food, and I thought he was a hipster little dick for saying he would not. For me, the role of food in familial and social bonding is too great to ignore, and I will never refuse meat in a social situation when I believe that the consumption of that food serves an immediate role in the greater social communion of the event. Bratwurst being served on the side at a football game doesn't count; mom's Thanksgiving turkey most emphatically does.


trivialchemy Ironic was probably the wrong word. I was just trying to observe the way that people's personal value systems seemed to be getting subsumed to a general ethic neatly (and simplistically) embodied by the title of this book itself. I wasn't mocking the question, I thought it was a legitimate observation.

Caris wrote: "This was, in fact, the most powerful part of the book for me. It takes a lot to do what he did. "

There's no doubt it took a lot of social fortitude, but that certainly does not vindicate it. I also think it took a lot of insensitivity to his grandmother's world-view and value system. My grandmother will NEVER understand vegetarianism, just as she will never understand why it's not a good idea to call black people "colored people." She will not understand these views no matter how rational my case, nor how noble the underlying principle. So there is a trade off here. For you that trade falls to one side and for me it falls to the other, according to how we have prioritized ethical questions. I think on this one we just agree to disagree.

I think we are basically approaching a fairly civil impasse here, which is good. I guess I just regret the ways in which books like this, by offering very good general guidelines, bolster a sense that one well-considered value system is inherently superior to another due to one particular non-negotiable black-and-white issue. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is guilty of that! Y'all have been most understanding and non-evangelizing.) When I encounter it, it strikes me as EXACTLY the types of morally superior condescension that atheists display towards theists. They see the issue as so black and white because of a few fundamental factors (the bible is silly, materialism is a self-consistent picture of the universe, etc.), that anyone who has a much wider ontological vision which happens to include a deity, they must be deluded, irrational, emotionally fragile, etc. It's also EXACTLY the type of morally superior condescension adopted by the right wing. You pick one issue, reduce it until it is black and white, ignore all the complexities of the real world, and then anyone who has a slightly differing vision of the entailments of that one issue must be a moron, treasonous, or tragically misguided.

Again, that last bit was not directed to anyone here. Just a general complaint about how I have observed the universe to be.


trivialchemy Hug it out, bitch.


trivialchemy I wish Meredith would give me an internet hug, I'm still not sure if she was serious earlier or just being feisty.


芦 previous 1 3
back to top