The relativist vegan

I don't trust people who don't eat meat.

The case I find interesting is abortion. I've heard many women say, "I would never have an abortion, but I wouldn't tell someone else they can't." It sounds to me as if they are acknowledging a serious moral issue, but don't want to be unpopular or uncool.

"Are there guidelines for deciding when morality is absolute, and when it is relative?" As regards vegetarianism, the principle that humans ought to avoid cruelty to animals does appear to be nearly universal, however, there are of course widely divergent views as to how this principle should be applied. Moreover, it is not only a matter of views: different physical, economic, and cultural circumstances can make a moral difference. An abolutist vegan position -- that humans should avoid animal-based products under all circumstances -- is difficult if not impossible to support, given the fact that the Lord ate meat and that nowhere in the Bible or apostolic tradition can an absolute prohibition on eating meat and dairy products be found. Accordingly, there are circumstances, such as those which obtained in Biblical times in the Near East, that justify at least some meat-eating, or, in other words, under such circumstances, some meating-eating under such circumstances was not a violation of the universal prohibition on cruelty to animals.

All this said, a stronger argument can be made that in 21st century America, particularly in cities where there are many delicious vegetarian options such as Thai and Indian, it now *is* a violation of the prohibition on cruelty to animals to eat meat, all the more so if, as is typically the case today, the animals are raised and killed under cruel conditions.

As for Scripture and apostolic tradition, while they never condemn meat-eating absolutely, nevertheless there are many passages and practices that give evidence of a preference for a vegetarian diet, e.g., the fact that Adam and Eve are given the herbs of the garden to eat but not animals; that the Torah restricts meat-eating as well consumption of dairy products; that in the Book of Jonah and in the gospels, God expresses his care for the animals; that Catholic and Orthodox Christians have long abstained from meat on fast days and some monks and saints have abstained from meat completely or almost completely.

In conclusion, no absolutist prohibition on meat-eating is recognized in our Christian tradition, but meat-eating has long been restricted in it and a vegetarian diet held in esteem. The prohibition on cruelty to animals is universal, but may be applied differently in different circumstances. The Church has obviously not stated that today's circumstances (which in any case vary from country to country) mandate a vegetarian diet for all.

Still, many Christians today find that in the particular circumstances of their own lives, and having in mind some of the points from Scripture and apostolic tradition above, as well as the cruelty of factory farming and the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, conscience forbids them to eat meat. They cannot say with absolute certainty that theirs is the right position, for the Church, the pillar of truth, has not mandated vegetarianism. Nevertheless, if they act for the right reasons (to avoid violating the universal prohibition on animal cruelty), knowing at every meal and in-between meals what it costs them to act in accord with conscience (they may love the taste of meat as much as others do), then they may be assured that they are doing what is right, and possibly even required, for them.

"Are there guidelines for deciding when morality is absolute, and when it is relative?" As regards vegetarianism, the principle that humans ought to avoid cruelty to animals does appear to be nearly universal, however, there are of course widely divergent views as to how this principle should be applied. Moreover, it is not only a matter of views: different physical, economic, and cultural circumstances can make a moral difference. An abolutist vegan position -- that humans should avoid animal-based products under all circumstances -- is difficult if not impossible to support, given the fact that the Lord ate meat and that nowhere in the Bible or apostolic tradition can an absolute prohibition on eating meat and dairy products be found. Accordingly, there are circumstances, such as those which obtained in Biblical times in the Near East, that justify at least some meat-eating, or, in other words, under such circumstances, some meating-eating under such circumstances was not a violation of the universal prohibition on cruelty to animals.

All this said, a stronger argument can be made that in 21st century America, particularly in cities where there are many delicious vegetarian options such as Thai and Indian, it now *is* a violation of the prohibition on cruelty to animals to eat meat, all the more so if, as is typically the case today, the animals are raised and killed under cruel conditions.

As for Scripture and apostolic tradition, while they never condemn meat-eating absolutely, nevertheless there are many passages and practices that give evidence of a preference for a vegetarian diet, e.g., the fact that Adam and Eve are given the herbs of the garden to eat but not animals; that the Torah restricts meat-eating as well consumption of dairy products; that in the Book of Jonah and in the gospels, God expresses his care for the animals; that Catholic and Orthodox Christians have long abstained from meat on fast days and some monks and saints have abstained from meat completely or almost completely.

In conclusion, no absolutist prohibition on meat-eating is recognized in our Christian tradition, but meat-eating has long been restricted in it and a vegetarian diet held in esteem. The prohibition on cruelty to animals is universal, but may be applied differently in different circumstances. The Church has obviously not stated that today's circumstances (which in any case vary from country to country) mandate a vegetarian diet for all.

Still, many Christians today find that in the particular circumstances of their own lives, and having in mind some of the points from Scripture and apostolic tradition above, as well as the cruelty of factory farming and the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, conscience forbids them to eat meat. They cannot say with absolute certainty that theirs is the right position, for the Church, the pillar of truth, has not mandated vegetarianism. Nevertheless, if they act for the right reasons (to avoid violating the universal prohibition on animal cruelty), knowing at every meal and in-between meals what it costs them to act in accord with conscience (they may love the taste of meat as much as others do), then they may be assured that they are doing what is right, and possibly even required, for them.

Kieran
I don't think the Eden story really shows a biblical preference for vegetarianism. Clearly the Old Testament shows God approving ritual animal sacrifice. Look at the story of Cain and Abel. Noah was told to bring on board seven of each kosher animal. God provided quail along with manna on the Exodus. Abraham slaughtered a calf to feed the visiting angels.

Likewise, the gospels are filled with fish eating, including Jesus using fishing as a metaphor for bringing others to his message. Also, there was Peter's vision on the rooftop. "Arise Peter, kill and eat". Meat-eating seems to be pretty specifically condoned and expected.

Rich, Kieran isn't making a solely Biblical argument against meat-eating, but also a moral and prudential one. The fact that the Bible allows it doesn't mean that it's automatically adviseable in every time and circumstance.

"It's the people who believe that one is absolutely required to make a firm and uncompromising moral stand, and to make it publicly, no matter what the circumstances, at the risk of obviating their own personal integrity -- those rigid, inflexible, inhuman people really put me off."

Aren't you that way about abortion? Weren't the abolitionists that way about slavery? (I'm assuming you're okay with them having been that way about slavery.)

The problem with your, er, problem, is that tautology gets in the way: Most of us have a moral stance or two which are rigid and inflexible. If we permit ourselves those stances, there's really no way rightly to deny them to other people.

Francis -

You might be interested to know that there is a small (I think) but strong anti-abortion subculture within veganism. I myself have been rethinking my long-held abortion views. I am not against early stage abortifacents (sp), but obviously one of the main tenets of veganism is that you don't torture or kill sentient things for convenience, so this creates a conflict in terms of latter-term abortions.

I would eat chicken eggs, btw, if procuring them didn't involve participating in an exploitive system.

Hill

I rather like having people with inflexible moral views around me. It is so much fun to watch them turn pretty colors when I flaunt my immorality in their faces.

Ok, all kidding aside. Dr. Irwin Lutzer wrote a little book back in the 70s entitled "How in this World Can I be Holy" in which he made an interesting case. He wrote of the people in his world who did not do things that they considered sinful (like dancing and going to movies) who realized that their neighbors would not live like them but assumed that their neighbors would respect them for it. And what they did not realized was that their neighbors just thought that they were crazy.

Thomas R-- I've read mixed things about children raised as vegans. Some people say their children are taller and bigger than average. Others say their children are shorter, but they catch up to non-vegans. We can't forget that "regular" children nowadays eat so much food that is pumped with growth hormones that they tend to grow and develop much sooner than is natural. Vegan children may just be growing at a more natural pace, but compared to the hyper-growth of others, they appear to be smaller.

Also, compare our teeth to a lion's teeth. Our canines are not made for tearing. Nor do we have claws or talons to rip and tear at an animal's skin. We are definitely omnivores, leaning towards being herbivores.

Have you read the China Study? It clarifies a few things about Asian diets. The Japanese do eat fish, but it's used more like a condiment than a main entree. You will see small bits of it in foods, but rarely featured as a main course. Any evidence otherwise is simply from Japanese who have "westernized" their diets and have moved towards the typical American diet.

This is a great article. I love to discuss these issues!

Rob G, point taken. I mistook Kieran's argument as more of a biblical directive for vegetarianism.

Hillary said:
Many vegans, including myself, have a clear empathy with the animals that are being tortured and slaughtered so it makes it difficult (and wrong) to be moderate.

I understand your sentiment, but I think that is what makes so many issues like this so difficult to discuss, and what causes the type of problems that led to Rod's combox post a few days ago. If you reach a point where you honestly believe, as PETA would put it, that meat=murder, then there is no longer any room for discussion or debate. I've got no love for factory farm, but if the mere fact an animal is slaughtered for meat is cruelty, most human treatment of animals would be considered cruelty. Where do you draw the line? I've got a couple of stories that don't involve meat that demonstrate the problem.

When I was seven I played Little League baseball. During one game a sidewinder came into our fenced-in dugout. We immediately began scrambling up the fencing to get away from it. My dad walked to his pickup and grabbed a shovel. He killed the snake and then we finished the game. Now being that this was a west Texas farm town nobody had any objection at all. Being farm boys we also knew what a sidewinder was, and knew to fear them. But I thought about this recently and wondered what would have happened had this been in a big city or suburb? How many parents present may have gotten angry at my dad for killing the snake? (Of course with modern city kids there's a good chance one of them would have tried to pick it up). Would his action, in 2008 America, have constituted cruelty?

In late 1990 I started Paramedic training at Texas Tech. We were all very surprised at the strict security at the Health Sciences Center. Our program director explained that there was a researcher there who was working on SIDS. His research included respiratory research and testing on cats. The previous year a group called the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) had broken into his lab. They stole or destroyed most research records and files, destroyed all of the lab equipment and computers, and put graffiti everywhere. They "liberated" five cats. Our director said that their SIDS research was set back years. Was the research itself cruelty, and was the ALF response an appropriate response to cruelty?

To many people, myself included, these are simple matters of common sense. Of course you kill a rattlesnake that crawls into a dugout full of little boys. Of course you experiment on cats if it might save human babies. But if you believe death or physical harm dealt to an animal by humans is always a form of cruelty, then these situations are untenable. And it becomes an unbridgeable gulf across which discussion, or even civility, is impossible.

I really like what Rich and Francis have to say.

I'll add this: It is clearly wrong for a Christian to engage in cruelty toward animals. It is clearly not wrong for a Christian to kill and eat animals. Therefore, the killing of an animal is not necessarily an act of cruelty.

Obviously, torturing and killing animals for some twisted kind of fun is wrong (and often a sign of serious mental issues). But where does the cruelty in the killing of animals for meat arise?

This is where I think the biggest difference between the "moral" vegan and the "lifestyle" vegan comes into play. The "moral" vegan sees the killing of an animal as an act of evil, while the "lifestyle" one does not.

The "lifestyle" vegan, along with meat-eaters, sees the animal as being fundamentally unaware of death. The animal may sense some sort of fear as it approaches slaughter, but not any more so than it does at other times, and for reasons as varied as a thunderstorm to a veterinary treatment. It doesn't face death with the existential horror of a human, who knows what death is and fears it as he fears little else. A man about to die reflects on life, on the people he is leaving behind, on the pains and terrors of death itself, on the vast uncertainty of what lies beyond--and even a deeply religious person will feel this, though the greatest saints may not have known it. If it is cruel to kill a man deliberately it is because of this, but an animal will not feel any of the pangs of death that a human will.

The "moral" vegan, though, would disagree, and insist that it is cruel to kill an animal for whatever reason, however noble: the feeding of the starving or for life-saving medical research included. That the animal is unaware and does not experience the existential horror described is either brushed aside or actually disputed.

I might suggest a third way in between the moral and lifestyle motivators – the “ethical vegan”, perhaps? This person is not a priori opposed to the consumption of animal products, but is deeply concerned about the practice and effects of factory farming, and wishes not to support the meat industry in its current state. They likely enjoy eating meat, and miss it on occasion; they may even consume animal products as long as they know that the item has been produced humanely and sustainably. However, not having the same assurance about commercially-derived animal products, they have decided to abstain for the time being. (I bring this up because almost all of the vegans and vegetarians I know match this description more closely than they do either of the other two.)

Regarding relativism v. absolutism, I don’t think I’ve seen a convincing Christian argument that meat consumption is by definition immoral. However, James 4:17 does say that “to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Granted, this verse isn’t really about meat in its original context; however, it should provide food for thought (pun intended) for those Christians who know the nature of the meat industry and yet continue to participate in it nonetheless.

>>The "lifestyle" vegan, along with meat-eaters, sees the animal as being fundamentally unaware of death.

I doubt this is true of even most lifestyle vegans. The vast majority of vegans I've run into are motivated at least partly by ethics, even if mainly by lifestyle (health?) reasons.

As for the meat eaters, I don't think it's true for them, either. They may tell themselves that story but most don't really believe it. What you see all the time, when you're a vegan, is the moment at which someone denies their native impulse towards compassion and empathy for animals. That's the point where the denial and rationalizations begin - and I'm not guessing here; you can actually see and hear (and, sometimes, read) it. The point at which they say, "I know this is wrong but will persist in my behavior anyway for these (often, lame) reasons..." Or, where they giggle and then get angry or impatient and want to change the subject.

Hillary

Interesting posts. FWIW, we have decided at our house that we're opting out of the supermarket meat counter. We are not vegan, except at fasting seasons, which means that we are vegan for about half of the year, like now, for instance ;-) Although we're fine with eating meat, we can no longer support the cruelty of the large scale industrial meat packing system. Hill, I am enjoying what you have to say, but my Great-grandma slaughtered barnyard fowl for most of her life, and she had one of the sweetest souls around. I'm thinking that maybe her habit of beginning the task with a prayer of thanksgiving had something to do with that.

Martha Grimes is working on it. Try her latest, "Dakota". Her writings have become less murder mystery and more animal rights in later years. I really don't know if she has gone vegan, but it wouldn't surprise me.