Looking Deeper into Meat pt.1 – Commentaries on Jo Stepaniak Answers

A few days ago I came across a vegan website run by author Jo Stepaniak. I am really impressed by how she answers a wide assortment of questions that deal with and are often raised in regards to veganism. However, her answer to one question I felt was overly harsh and judgmental and critical. Perhaps she was playing hardball to get her point across. For whatever reason it may be, I found inspiration in her attitude to write commentaries regarding it. Part 1 will focus on her first sentence in her answer.

source: www.vegsource.com/jo/qa/qapromeat.htm

Someone asked her if there are any positive reasons to eat meat. Simply put, this person wants to know what the arguments against vegetarianism are.

First sentence in Jo’s answer: “There are no moral, ethical, philosophical, or biological reasons for humans to eat other animals.”

Philosophical

She states there are no philosophical reasons to eat other animals. On the contrary, there are. What is philosophy but the rational investigation into the existence of things? When philosophy is applied to the divine and God, it is called theology. If God states that animals have populated our reality for our use, then that is a philosophical way of viewing a relationship between God, humans and animals. Eating animals then becomes a way of life. This is a philosophy of how to live life and thus, a philosophical reason to eat meat. I am aware this point of view can be countered, but whether it is right or wrong does not make it any less a philosophy. What is right or wrong belongs in a conversation regarding morality.

Another reason would be to participate in the food chain that humans are part of (whether or not humans are part of a food chain and whether or not humans are acting naturally while participating in it is a big, messy topic for debate that I would love to explore another time. The food chain outlook toward life could also be considered a biological motive.).

Another reason, although extreme, would be using a physical act — eating meat — to illustrate or partake in a metaphysical concept of consuming a life force and becoming empowered by it (it is irrelevant to counter by saying a life force does not resides in a dead animal, for a life force cannot be proven to exist in the first place.) This act of worship is symbolic, spiritual, and religious. But if it is a way of life and an outlook toward reality. Therefore, it is a philosophical way of life trying to make sense of the material and immaterial. This example is the same as making love (a physical act) to create or experience love (emotional or spiritual). What I am referring to here is a rite: performing divine or spiritual acts through physical conduct. To discount eating meat under these circumstances is secularism. Rejecting a way of thinking that deals with issues in life, such as death and souls, chi or life forces is to reject a perspective that is no more or less valid than yours.

Saying there is no philosophical reason for eating meat is silly and foolish. All this statement reveals is Jo Stepaniaks inability to perceive ways of thinking that fall outside her attitudes and morals. She is saying her way of thinking is right, other ways are wrong, and the door is closed for discussion. Bringing the topic of philosophy into a discussion of meat eating is apparently not a good idea.

Moral

Jo says there are no moral reasons to eat meat. This assertion only works when used against someone who appears to or claims to live a moral life, who has a firm grip of what is considered right and wrong. If someone has morals, then one can talk about morals. If someone is immoral, then a discussion of the sorts is pointless. If one cannot see, do not waste your breath describing colors. It will not be understood.

There are many people, mostly dead, whom I respect and revere that have talked about the conduct, intentions and actions of humans, known as moral principles, otherwise known as ethics, and applied them to eating meat. Like opinions and just like the concepts of good and evil, the weight of moral values appears to be based on the number of subscribers adhering to such ethics. But maybe not. Are there universal morals? I am not sure. The philosophy of morals have been discussed for a very, very long time and I am not well read in the subject. Regardless, with my basic understanding I see no conscientious, virtuous, or moral reason to eat meat.

Being ethical is to conform and adhere to a moral principle. Using “ethical” in her answer is redundant. Those two words are nearly synonyms. If there are no moral reasons to preform a certain action, then it follows that there will be no ethical reasons as well.

Biological

There may have been a biological reason to eat meat in the past to obtain b-12, maybe not, but it certainly is no longer required in our present era. B-12 is supplemented in all sorts of foods, such as bread, beverages, and bars.

Bottom Line

So, to reconstruct her answer, it should simply say there are no moral or current biological reasons to eat animals.

Compassion — the strongest reasoning for adopting a vegan lifestyle — lies in the realms of morality and is practiced physically and ardently through a vegan diet and lifestyle.