Guns, God and meat: Not quite the story of how and why we came to
be, but an interesting breakdown of the way we live our lives nonetheless. I
lump these three items together for no particular reason other than the fact
that I have made conscious and thought out decisions to exclude all three from
my life. I refuse the responsibility and implications of owning a lethal
firearm and would find no comfort with that extra weight around my waist; I
find no logic behind the existence of a higher power, and religious
institutions and practices play no role in my everyday existence simply because
I don’t need or want them to; I don’t need to eat animals to survive, and I haven’t
felt a void in my life in the seven years I’ve been vegetarian to indicate any
personal happiness is lost in my decision of exclusion.
The beauty behind personal morality and ethics is just that: They're personal, not universal. You want to carry around a weapon? Do it responsibly
and within the means of the law. Want to practice a religion? As long as it
doesn’t have a bearing on my life or the lives of others who don’t agree with
you. Feel the need to indulge in some foi
gras or veal, or maybe a chicken sandwich? Hopefully you’ve thought about
the implications of your actions, but eat away my carnivore friend.
Of course we don’t live in a perfect world and these guidelines
are not always followed. Mass shootings happen. Gay marriages, in many parts of
the world, do not. Slaughterhouses exist as an often invisible link between a
breathing animal and the packaged meat you purchase at a store, simply because
it’s easier not to think about it.
Even if you choose not to question how that meat got on your
table, it’s not a secret that you’re eating a dead animal, and that the animal on
your plate most likely didn’t die as a result of natural consequences. So, you’ve
made a decision to eat it, even if weighing that decision was made at a
subconscious level. There was a choice involved, and choices involve, at the
least, weighing one option against the other.
Hopefully we can agree that ethics and morality are individual,
and that eating meat involves a choice between consciously consuming a dead
animal for enjoyment or avoiding that consumption (eating meat as means for
survival or health, therefore, presents no choice and is excluded from the
conversation) on any number of grounds. So then, as a vegetarian, I’m confused
to the indignation surrounding the recent controversy in Europe that revealed
some beef products were actually made from horsemeat.
Now, let me clarify. I’m not confused as to why people are angry
that they were misled. If it turned out that the tofu I regularly purchase was
actually tempeh, I’d probably be mad simply because I had been duped; although
after I got over that my anger would be manifest in the sound of my shoulders
shrugging. Eat a tempeh reuben sandwich and tell me how upset you are after you’ve
finished.
And if your religious
practices do not allow the eating of horse meat, I can certainly understand why
you would be in an uproar. But if religious exemptions of horse meat are not
your everyday reality, after the shock of finding out what you thought you were
eating was actually something else, would you really be upset?
Writing in the Atlantic,
Corby Kummer breaks down the anger and repulsion to horse meat in the following
way:
“This is news because of cultural taboos and the big ick factor of eating animals to which we ascribe -- that is, willfully project -- personality and character. It's a sharper, more painful, but similar reaction to anyone who encounters a restaurant or, worse, butcher selling dog meat in China.”
What makes horse meat wrong but meat
from a cow, or pig, or chicken, or fish acceptable? Why is a butcher selling
dog meat in China abhorrent, while a nice filet
mignon that costs more than the daily keep of a minimum wage employee is no
problem?
Personality and character, really?
Cats sleep an average of 15
hours a day, leaving them nine waking hours a day to establish their
renowned personality as reclusive, despondent animals. On the other hand, cows
are social animals amongst themselves and sleep for less than four hours a day.
Dogs and pigs have comparable
intelligence levels. Shouldn’t you feel comfortable getting a cat burger at
McDonald’s instead of a meat patty? Instead of bacon links for breakfast, why
not eat strips of salted German Shepherd?
I understand the relationship animals
and horses have together: Horses are more likely to provide a sense of
companionship than other farm animals, and there is an air of regality around equestrians
and horse racing. But, really, what difference does it make? Pigs can be
domesticated quite easily, and I imagine you would have a closer relationship
with a pig than a ferret, or hedgehog, or snake, or gerbil, or any other animal
taboo to eat. Not to mention the work has already been done for you. Is
somebody shooting a cow in the head so you can enjoy a burger any less
bothersome than shooting a horse in the head?
As for a health argument, studies
have shown that horse meat has some advantages to
traditional meat and no health risks were posed in
the mislabeled food. And let’s be blunt about this, if you’re eating frozen “beef”
lasagna or meatballs, you’ve lost the plot, at least momentarily, on being
consciously healthy.
None of my arguments are new or
original, of course. Peter Singer laid the groundwork decades ago while
Jonathan Safran Foer provides a more contemporary voice. Countless examples lie
between them. Either way I don’t really care, I’m just confused and rather
curious. If you’re offended or disgusted with eating a horse, but have no
problem with a hamburger, that’s great. I’m just curious as to why.
And if you have eaten horse before,
that’s great too. Maybe you shot one in the head with your own gun, and then
said a prayer before you ate it. It’s not for me, but maybe my tofu hoagie isn’t
for you. And that's OK.
