Vegetarianism is a means not an end. In its proper context, practicing vegetarianism at times, most of the time or even all the time is a means to accomplish something else - health, religious devotion, saving money, economic improvement, protesting animal abuse, etc. In their proper context, I consider all of these valid; I would definitely say some of these goals are more important than others, but all have some degree of validity. But when we define vegetarianism as a practice which is a means to accomplish another goal, it means that there is no such thing as a "vegetarian." Both a monk and an animal rights activist may practice vegetarianism, but it would absolutely incorrect to lump both together under the category of "vegetarian." Their reasons have nothing to do with each other, and their manner of living and focus in life are entirely different.
Vegetarianism is something you can do sometimes, and not at others. This definition of vegetarianism (a means to accomplish other ends) is the definition I support. Depending on the purpose, I sympathize with and practice vegetarianism. This definition allows someone to practice vegetarianism 95% of the time, then eat meat at the family Christmas dinner without feeling they've "lost their (meat) virginity," so to speak; it allows people to practice vegetarianism during religious fasting, and enjoy eating meat again when the feast day comes.
The label "vegetarian" makes vegetarianism an end rather than a means. I would say most if not all vegetarians start off with something like I described above; they abstain from meat for a specific purpose which is an end more important than the practice itself. Yet, I feel that often once people make the leap and finally to call themselves "vegetarian," (note: this is not giving up meat altogether, but actually taking on the label) the relation of means vs. end gets turns on its head. Vegetarianism is now the end, and the purpose, and all the other ends (religion, health, animal rights, economy) suddenly become the means to justify being Vegetarian. A vegetarian trying to convince someone else to become vegetarian (a situation that couldn't happen in the above definition) will give a long list of justifications - "Take your pick," is the message, "so long as you become vegetarian, it doesn't matter what your reason is."
Vegetarian purity. Once someone calls himself "vegetarian," he is committing himself to NOT eating meat pretty much at all costs. I've seen vegetarians have a whole household running around trying to change the food so they can eat it. If a "vegetarian" eats meat once, they've committed a grave error on a moral level. They're left with the moral conflict of whether they will continue to be vegetarian or give in to their failure and abandon their cause. Being vegetarian, if you're not careful, can become like a religion in itself.
I probably don't have to say that I'm not a fan of this kind of vegetarianism. Besides the fact that I still haven't heard a compelling reason to give up meat completely (to eat less or even little meat, yes, but to eat no meat, no,) I've never liked the idea of putting my hosts to all sorts of trouble to accommodate my preference. The most important point is, I see vegetarianism as a means to accomplish more important goals.
I will continue to practice vegetarianism as often as it's necessary or reasonable to do so. I'll continue practicing vegetarianism many days of my life because meat costs too much; I'll continue practicing vegetarianism during religious fasts to focus on God and give more to others. On the other hand, for now, I'll continue eating meat when my family feels like it, to celebrate feast days and (usually) when I'm at another person's house and they offer me meat. But even if one day I stop eating meat altogether, I still won't be "vegetarian," because it will still be a means to accomplish another end, and not an end in itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment