Eat what you don't kill
Why, exactly, is there superior virtue to getting one's hands dirty this way. I don't not know where my turkey came from just because I didn't raise it up from a chick, name it and kill it with my own hands as a prelude to eating it. Some might say that naming something you are planning to kill and eat is a little psychopathic, but, in any event, I don't see what great moral virtue such actions have.
The author of the Salon piece says "If couldn't kill something myself, I shouldn't be eating it. I decided I needed to face my inner killer." Does this mean that she won't be eating beef or lamb, or that some friendly baby quadrupeds will soon be arriving at her doorstep so she can build toward the diet she once enjoyed? Or does it mean that I'm O.K. because I've killed a few fish in my day? Or does it mean that if I want to visit people in New York, I need to build my own 727 and fly it there? It's kind of a stupid philosophy, isn't it? Also, why is absolute moral consistency such a virtue for some people, often those who like to talk about their own? Life is too short not to sweep a few things under the rug.
No one ever talks about the countless people in modern society who have been spared the undoubted psychological trauma of having to kill or be near the killing of the animals they eat. Psychological trauma is not generally thought of as a good thing, and I really doubt that the sum total of human happiness would be increased by everyone killing their own animals. If you want to know how it will make you feel, here's a guess: it will make you feel bad. How do you think it's going to make you feel, you moron? Use your imagination. I'm sure the result is close enough, with a lot less trauma.
And if you have a really good imagination, Judith Regan might have a book contract for you.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home