Jai Ho

I have a problem: I want to be a vegetarian. “So what’s the problem?” you might ask. I am half German and Germans tend to eat meat, a lot of meat. Not without reason; every major city from Frankfurt to Nürnberg has a sausage named after itself.

But why bother at all? First of all, there are health reasons.

Red meat has a lot of saturated fats, cholesterol and purine; it lacks vitamins (except B-complex), and is likely to have antibiotics and steroids.

However, more important for me to overcome my German-ness, is the fact that meat consumption is taking a tremendous toll on our environment - whether it is the amount of vegetables, fossil fuels, or water which are required to produce meat and which could be redistributed to the hungry. Then there is  methane emission of cattle. Closely linked to these factors is also the rising cost of meat. As a student of philosophy, to me the issue is a moral one too. Can we defend meat consumption? Perhaps for survival? Except for those few living in  non-arable areas, no one is depending on meat for survival today.

Are we permitting ourselves as a ‘superior’ species to kill other species? This thought is pretty common in the west and the Bible  states that “everything that lives and moves will be food for you.” (Genesis 9:3) 

This thinking leads us to irresponsible “speciesism”, as the most eminent philosophical proponent of vegetarianism, as Peter Singer, called it. Exalting the status of the human animal and his rights above other animals stands in line with western philosophical thought, which defined men as being human because of rationality and virtue, in contrast to the negative, irrational part in us, our so-called animalistic side.

Not only did this cause discrimination against and suffering of a plethora of other species, biologists like Frans de Waal revealed that parts of our so called humane side, such as morality, find their origin within animals, who bequeathed us these capabilities to refine them.

If one argues that one is allowed to devour someone else, because of one’s superior intelligence, then would it apply to those within the species as well? Is it then a question of whose life is worthier than another and for what reason? How does one decide the value of one life over that of another? One can well imagine a sci-fi scenario where aliens with an IQ that far surpasses our self-destructive intelligence could come to earth and start hunting us humans down as food for their survival, only because we have inferior intellects compared to theirs and also because we are not the same species.

Lastly, intertwined with the moral argument, is the spiritual argument. Many Hindus, Jains and Buddhists refrain from eating meat due to the principle of ahimsa or non-violence and since it has negative impact on spiritual development. Or why else would  have every elated soul from M K Gandhi to Guru Nanak Dev abstain from eating meat?

Through meat consumption we ingest negative energy, as we absorb the fear and agony of the dying animal, so the argument goes. Hard-line vegetarians may find this logical and consequently claim that meat enhances aggression. Although there may be correlations between nutrition and aggression, it is still disputed among scientists whether this is the case with meat.

Eventually, there is no argument vindicating a human carnivore, whether he is so on account of  social habit, or, as in my case, akrasia (weak will), as the Greeks called it.