Vegetarianism

Here's something I've been wondering about for a while (sorry to those whom I've asked about it already!):
I'm a pseudo-vegetarian - I can have seafood. But sometimes I enjoy the smell of meat cooking, such as when running past a restaurant or attending a barbeque. And I think that it's permissible for me to smell meat. But suppose I were to come home and find a steak sitting on my counter, and that if I were to taste it rather than simply throw it away, it would not have any impact on the world (other than making a difference in my internal states). Is it morally permissible for me to taste it? If it is, then it seems there's no reason that I shouldn't eat the steak to gain nutrients from it as well, which means that vegetarianism isn't morally required. But if tasting the steak isn't morally permissible, then it seems that enjoying the smell of cooking meat wouldn't be permissible either. Is there a justification for vegetarianism which gives the result that eating the steak is wrong, but enjoying the smell of cooking meat is not? (Some people might say that I shouldn't eat the meat because it would have an effect on my character - so let's avoid that response by assuming that in my case, eating the meat will not adversely affect my character. Then in order to use the character-maintenance justification one would need to deny that such a case is even possible.)

Comments

[Neal]

There is a big difference between eating meat and enjoying the smell of it.

Arguably, one is under your voluntary control, and one is not. So, if you buy into the 'ought' implies 'can' principle (which you might not), then you can't be morally obligated not to enjoy the smell of the meat, since such a sentiment is not under your control. On the other hand, being morally required to refrain from eating meat does not violate the 'ought' imples 'can' principle.

[Shieva]

But I think that it's morally permissible for me to hang out for an extra few minutes on my deck even if it's just because my neighbors are having a barbeque and I like the smell of the meat cooking. It's under my control whether I continue to enjoy the smell of the meat in that case.

[enwe]

Neal write:
"There is a big difference between eating meat and enjoying the smell of it.Arguably, one is under your voluntary control, and one is not."

That's not quite right. Really interesting are not the actions themselves (eating meat and smell sth) but the things or processes you support with that actions.
With eating meat you support the meat-industry. Enjoying the smell of it and thereby not going to these people who actually have a barbecue in order to convince them not to eat meat,you support the meat-industry too.
I can't see the big difference.

[charles]

Of course, the example was crafted in such a way as to give the exact result that you wanted. I agree that if meat appeared out of nowhere seemingly for your own benefit, there's nothing wrong with eating it. But in actual cases where you are presented with the option of eating already-cooked meat, you choosing to do so underwrites future decisions by the host(ess) to cook "an extra steak" if (s)he knows that you will be present. My declining meat consistently has ensured that my family will not cook that "extra steak", and so has, despite having (perhaps) wasted some meat in the past, resulted in a net drop in meat consumed. I don't think you need a different version of vegetarianism, you just need to think about actual cases over time.

Consider an analogy:
Suppose I come home and find a person who has never existed before I walked in the door waiting for me. He'll disappear along with anything he appeared with (including internal objects) when I leave the house, so it makes no difference to the world whether I kill him or not (except maybe on my character, but let's assume in my case that I have the moral fortitude to not be affected if I do it just this once, or some such).

My response is the same: bizarre cases like these do not help us in evaluating or deploying our moral intuitions. Instead, it seems to me that they assume away by implausible and unnatural stipulation those very features of actual acts that moral principles seem to explain or justify -- perhaps even question-beggingly.

[charles]

"With eating meat you support the meat-industry. Enjoying the smell of it and thereby not going to these people who actually have a barbecue in order to convince them not to eat meat,you support the meat-industry too."

Actually performing an act is very different than failing to prevent an act, both legally and morally in my view.

[enwe]

"Actually performing an act is very different than failing to prevent an act, both legally and morally in my view."

Perhaps I didn't understand what the really interesting act which a person A actually perform and the other person B fails to prevent, is.
Eating the meat? I don't think so.

[charles]

"Perhaps I didn't understand what the really interesting act which a person A actually perform and the other person B fails to prevent, is.
Eating the meat? I don't think so."

It's the act that A performs versus the act A fails to prevent. If A eats the meat, he in many cases financially benefits the meat industry. If someone else is already eating meat, then A's enjoying the smell is in a sense epiphenomenal with respect to the meat industry: the financial benefit has already been incurred. Perhaps A is "giving support" to the meat industry in much the same way as criticism of President Bush supposedly "give support" to "terrorists", but such claims are, inter alia, hard to support with credible evidence.

[Jeff Medina]

"But I think that it's morally permissible for me to hang out for an extra few minutes on my deck even if it's just because my neighbors are having a barbeque and I like the smell of the meat cooking. It's under my control whether I continue to enjoy the smell of the meat in that case."

One case I can think of where the moral thing to do is avoid smelling the meat:
You spend time out back enjoying the smell. Your neighbors notice the correlation (smell = more Shieva). They happen to enjoy your company. Thus, they (whether consciously or subconsciously) have more barbeques, and you've inadvertantly increased the level of meat consumption in the world.

If that's ruled out, I'd say enjoying the smell is totally permissible. I agree with most of what Charles has said. You're not benefiting the meat industry by second-hand phenomenalizing.

Concerning eating the steak about to be thrown away -- if no one knows that you ate it, it appears Charles' objection is nullified, because no one will make that 'extra steak' in the future thinking you might eat it. So it is, in my view, morally permissible (at least with regard to vegetarianism; it may be morally wrong for other reasons, e.g. if you take deception to be morally wrong, then misleading your family into thinking you threw the steak away when you really ate it would imply you shouldn't eat it).

Psychologically speaking, I would recommend you not eat any such steaks, and that you avoid enjoying the smell as much as possible. Behavior is inertial; the more you enjoy the smell (and the stolen secret tastes), the more likely it is that you will eventually be a regular meat-eater.

"With eating meat you support the meat-industry. Enjoying the smell of it and thereby not going to these people who actually have a barbecue in order to convince them not to eat meat,you support the meat-industry too.
I can't see the big difference."

This argument requires a false dichotomy. Specifically, it assumes that Shieva only has two options - (1) enjoy the smell of meat a few extra minutes & never try to convince the neighbors to become vegetarian and (2) avoid smelling the meat & go try to convince the neighbors to become vegetarian.
In reality, though, Shieva has other options. She could enjoy the smell, reflect for a moment, then go over and convince them to stop. She avoid the smell and *do nothing to convince her neighbors to become vegetarian*; this latter option almost exclusively being the one taken by most vegetarians (most people, in general, don't go around knocking on neighborhood doors preaching their beliefs, right? right.) So enjoying the smell isn't necessitating or even implying that she won't convince her neighbors to become vegetarians.

-----
On a related note, may I ask why you refrain from mammal-meals but eat seafood? Some sort of "fish aren't conscious enough to matter morally" deal?

Cheers,
Jeff

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I starting huffing meat fumes. That summer, I gave my boyfriend a BBQ for his birthday. He'd give me money to score steak for parties. Sometimes he'd cook the fix on my stove and offer me a bite. Before long, I was mainlining again.

If you're serious about quitting meat, it's probably self-defeating to savor it vicariously. It's not wrong per se, but it's not what I'd consider a becoming habit for someone who takes the moral status of animals seriously. There's a great scene in "Infinite Jest" where Hal recalls his appetite dissolving into horror and disgust when he realized that the delicious smell in the kitchen was a microwaved human head. Hal experienced a sense of disgust at the smell and at himself for having savored the smell because he had strong feelings about the morality of eating the flesh of his dead father--even though his dad was already dead by his own had. I think someone who rejects eating animals should cultivate such congruent moral sentiments.

Enjoying the smell of meat is like glorying privately in the misfortune of others. In some sense, I might as well feel happy when Donald Rumsfeld is humiliated. I'm not eating any skin off his nose, after all. But still, I have a quasi-moral urge to reign in my gloating. I'm not going to beat myself up for feeling a flash of malicious glee, but I try not to wallow.

[enwe]

"With eating meat you support the meat-industry. Enjoying the smell of it and thereby not going to these people who actually have a barbecue in order to convince them not to eat meat,you support the meat-industry too.
I can't see the big difference."

"This argument requires a false dichotomy."

Actually, it did not intend to give an argument. (It was just expressing incomprehension.) But nevertheless, you're right.
My point was just the following: We should think about the consequences of our actions, regardless whether the action in focus is eating the meat or enjoying the smell and not going and convincing the neighbours to acting otherwise.
Another question, which I thought about yesterday, was the following: Are we responsible for the consequences of the consequences of our actions? If not: Why are we responsible for the consequences of our actions? What is the difference between the consequences of the consequences of our actions and the consequences of our actions? And where do we have to break the chain?

[Jeff Medina]

"Another question, which I thought about yesterday, was the following: Are we responsible for the consequences of the consequences of our actions? If not: Why are we responsible for the consequences of our actions? What is the difference between the consequences of the consequences of our actions and the consequences of our actions? And where do we have to break the chain?"

I think the answer to this is that there is no such difference. "The consequences of the consequences of the [... 50 times over ...] of your actions" refers to precisely the same set of events as "the consequences of your actions" if there are no Simples, and to almost the same set if there are (and certainly the difference consists of morally negligible microevents, tiny Simples bumping other Simples without human-level causal significance.)

So, yes, you are responsible for the consequences of the consequences of your actions (iff you could reasonably have been expected to anticipate such consequences).

[Zehou]

Is this a blog for consequentialists only?

In the case of the mysetriously appearing steak in your kitchen: the right thing to do is probably to call the police.

Alternatively, if you're tempted to eat the hunk of bloody flesh of mysterious origin, but you don't want anyone to think you think it is acceptable to enjoy meat, then: lock your door and check for hidden cameras, then cook the flesh, and just smell and lick it for an hour or so. (It sounds like you'd have a blast doing so.) And don't be shy: squeeze any excess blood into a glass and drink up. Then place the steak near the top of the trash bin, so that anyone who walks through your kitchen will think you discarded it unsavored. (The fools.) Your reputation will be secure, and you'll have enjoyed a tasty flesh treat without being responsible for any harm coming to any creatures at all (except, that is, to your own health--but the damage there will have been modest at best).

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Zehou, I like the way you think, sir or madam.

In principle, a moral agent could be help responsible for an infinite number of consequences of consequences. However, no one is responsible for any outcome that could not be reasonably forseen. It's difficult enough to foresee the consequences of our actions, let alone their consequences multiple times removed.