Vegetarianism as a Form of Positive Deviance
A young American girl becomes vegetarian when, during dinner, she makes the connection between the very cute lamb she just saw at the petting zoo and the lamb chop that now rests on her plate. She declares she will stop eating meat to her family, and in a series of tumultuous events, including her family dancing and chanting, “you don’t make friends with salad,” her sabotage of her father’s neighborhood barbecue, and her sudden desperation to fit in again as she runs to the local convenience store to eat a hot dog, she realizes becoming a vegetarian is quite the challenge in American culture. As the premise for a Simpsons episode, an animated sitcom known for its comical social commentary on the
…show more content…
A normativist perspective provides a similar view to that of The Simpsons: if the norm is to eat meat, then vegetarianism is considered deviant. The inverse is also true: if eating meat is not the norm, vegetarianism is not considered deviant. But under other perspectives, norm violation does not necessarily imply deviance. The relativist would say vegetarianism is deviant only if the vegetarian is labeled as vegetarian. As soon as Lisa, the young girl in The Simpsons, goes public with her decision to become a vegetarian, her family and her friends begin to label her as such, and by this label she has become deviant. A reactionist would go further to say it is not just the label, but that vegetarianism is only deviant if the vegetarian encounters people who react to the vegetarianism in a way that defines that person as deviant. In the case of Lisa, a reactionist would say her vegetarianism is deviant because of how her family and her friends react to it: they make fun of her for being …show more content…
As it began in these two different cultures, vegetarianism was deviant because it had never been considered before. In the religious context of Buddhism, which has a history of an ascetic practice, that is, a practice of abstaining from all pleasures, including those of meat, vegetarianism could be considered a form of positive deviance in that it was seen as a path to enlightenment and self-fulfillment (2). But in Greece, and to some extent in American culture now and in the 70s especially, vegetarianism has been not so much a religious practice, but a rejection of authority and the typical ways of thinking about killing and eating animals (1, 2). Thus vegetarianism in this context would be considered positively deviant because it is seen as a sign of intellectual growth and a rebellion against old
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
Taylor, Alexander and Sunaura Taylor, “Is It Possible to Be a Conscientious Meat Eater?” Rpt in Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Barnet, Sylvia and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St.Martins. 2011. Print. 199-204.
Simplifying the Case for Vegetarianism is an article written by Andrew Tardiff as part of the academic journal Social Theory and Practice; published by Florida State University, Department of Philosophy in 1996. Tardiff was a part of the department of philosophy at Rhode Island College and wrote other articles, including A Catholic Case for Vegetarianism and Vegetarianism Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
Olson, Kirby. "Gregory Corso's Post-Vegetarian Ethical Dilemma.(Gregory Corso)(Essay)." Journal Of Comparative Literature And Aesthetics 1-2 (2004): 53. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Dec. 2013.
As I have progressed through this class, my already strong interest in animal ethics has grown substantially. The animal narratives that we have read for this course and their discussion have prompted me to think more deeply about mankind’s treatment of our fellow animals, including how my actions impact Earth’s countless other creatures. It is all too easy to separate one’s ethical perspective and personal philosophy from one’s actions, and so after coming to the conclusion that meat was not something that was worth killing for to me, I became a vegetarian. The trigger for this change (one that I had attempted before, I might add) was in the many stories of animal narratives and their inseparable discussion of the morality in how we treat animals. I will discuss the messages and lessons that the readings have presented on animal ethics, particularly in The Island of Doctor Moreau, The Dead Body and the Living Brain, Rachel in Love, My Friend the Pig, and It Was a Different Day When They Killed the Pig. These stories are particularly relevant to the topic of animal ethics and what constitutes moral treatment of animals, each carrying important lessons on different facets the vast subject of animal ethics.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."( Schopenhauer). Vegetarianism and animal rights movement have been crossing each other since 70’s. The meeting point between two is veganism which means strict vegetarianism. Vegetarianism was firstly founded as being formed on ethical issues and then it became mostly based on health reasons. Even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to its early days, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not a mere health choice.
In the story “Carnal Knowledge”, by T. Coraghessan Boyle, Jim is the main character who loves to eat meat. He would love nothing more than to enjoy a dinner of “Beef, mutton, pork, venison, dripping burgers, and greasy ribs”. (1107) However, Jim’s cravings for “Kentucky Fried or Chicken McNuggets” were no match for Alena Jorgensen. (1108) Alena is an obsessive animal rights activist whom Jim met while laying on the beach feeling sorry for himself. When a person has feelings of depression and loneliness it can be very easy for another person to come into their life and change their whole persona.
“The assumption that animals are without rights, and the illusion that their treatment has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."(Schopenhauer). I always wondered why some people are not so drawn to the consumption of meat and fed up with only one thought about it. Why so many people loathe of blood, and why so few people can easily kill and be slaughter animal, until they just get used to it? This reaction should say something about the most important moments in the code, which was programmed in the human psyche. Realization the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal of consumption of meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health.
Although vegetarians come in many forms, they are often thought to hold to a few set positions. Unfortunately, as is often the case, ascribing all (or most) vegetarians to specific camps is improper. One suspected position claims that it is wrong (or immoral) to eat meat-an act that obviously requires the slaughtering of the animal in question. Though some vegetarians hold to this position, I do not. While it is problematic that people eat excessive amounts of meat, eating meat isn't immoral in my view. And while I don't think meat eaters are somehow wrong, I certainly can understand and respect the position that eating meat is immoral. A second stereotypic position holds that vegetarians despise meat eaters. While there are certainly vegetarians that have issues with meat eaters, I suspect they are no more than the number of meat eaters that find vegetarians objectionable for some reason or another. I believe there are many acceptable ways to think and act and, thus, I don't begrudge those that eat meat or those that choose to think that it is immoral to do so.
We neatly separate animals into relatively artificial categories – “pets”, “wild animals”, and “farm animals”. These categories affect how we treat those within the category. For instance, our treatment of farm animals would be illegal if applied towards pets. If a shed filled with cages was then crammed by dogs so tightly that limits them to stretch or move freely, one would face strong social and legal sanction, but would probably differ in the case for chickens. According to two recent studies by Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson, it was observed that conservatives consume more meat and exploit animals more because they dismiss the threat that vegetarianism and veganism supposedly pose to traditions and cultural practice, and they feel more entitled to consume animals given human “superiority”. Aside from that, the study also examined the possibility of both conservatives and socialists in simply preferring the taste of meat thus consuming them. It appeared that the conservatives are more likely to consume more meat for reasons related to ideology, even after statistically removing the influence of hedonistically liking the taste of meat from the
According to the Human Research Council, the percentage of the United States population surveyed in 2014 that claimed to be vegan or vegetarian was 1.8% (“Reasons for Choosing Vegetarianism or Veganism,” 2016). Vegans are individuals who do not eat any animals products including meat and dairy products, whereas vegetarians are individuals who do not eat meat products. Vegetarians, as well as vegans, are considered minorities in society because they choose to eat a certain way and stray from social norms. They are made fun of and are constantly harassed by sensitive meat eaters and people who think it is “weird.” Vegetarians are thought to be crazy for not wanting to eat meat. This evolving era of vegetarianism is an ethical issue because majority
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
Numerous people believe that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy for the reason that one is not consuming enough protein since there is a decrease in the consumption of meat. However, meat is not the only source of protein. Nuts and grains contain great amounts of protein, and by eating these in the place of meat, one not only gets protein, but avoids the harmful carbohydrates and fats that are in animal meats. Consuming supplements can also help gain nutrients if the diet is not providing enough. There are countless amounts of nutritional supplements that one can purchase, including fish oil and omega 3s. These can be fairly cheap if purchased at the right place, and easily give bodies the nutrients they crave to function.