I recently outed myself as an atheistic agnostic. As such, I find myself thinking differently. Historically, I have always been at odds with certain moral dilemmas, my logic not always aligning with my Christian influences. Having set those influences aside deliberately, I have some issues to deal with.
One of those issues, regrettably, is butter.
The quandary is this: what is moral? What is right? It is easy and natural to fall onto defining moral as what results in the most comfort (or least discomfort) for a group. But what is that group? Clearly, I want to be in it. I want my wife in it. My parents. My children. You (assuming anyone actually reads this). But I find difficulty in knowing where to put that line. Is it all of humanity? I say yes, I would want all of humanity in that group. It would be very, very, very convenient for me to draw the line there.
But there are issues with that. I have had several dogs that I care(d) deeply for. Their suffering does not seem trivial to me, so I'd want them in that group. I would not consider it moral to abuse any of my pets. Dolphins and Bonobos copulate for pleasure, and that's kind of cool. So lets add them in. Many animals have demonstrated ethical behavior. So lets add them in. I can't look into the eyes of a being that thinks like me and revert to a morality that states a 1% genetic difference invalidates its suffering.
So now the best I can rationalize is that what is moral is that which reduces the suffering and/or increases the pleasure of conscious beings. Our robot overlords will love me as a house slave. But until then...
I have to figure out how to live morally in a society that feeds its populous through what I now see as the morally bankrupt practice of abusing animals. Many human societies throughout history have had a respectable symbiotic relationship with livestock. I do not see ours as one. We do not cherish the cow, chicken, turkey, or goat. We have a parasitic relationship. We abuse them. We breed them to be abused in life and tortured in slaughter. We have laws that protect pets, and excuse food-providing animals from those same laws so that we can have $0.99 chicken nuggets.
Now please do not misunderstand, cheap food is a very worthy goal. But is it not one that we can meet without this abuse? I think it is. But only through an animal-free food chain. When you add in an ethically treated animal, it just seems to cost too much to feed a man.
For that reason, I am now a relaxed, ethical vegan. The ethical side of this is that I have no problem with consumption of animal products if they are obtained ethically. But I do not want to support the US food industry at large due to its practices. I am relaxed as in this is my problem, not yours. I'm not asking anyone else to go out of their way for my moral problems, especially when most of the persons I associate with have a different moral basis, one that allows for these practices.
Although I won't complain if you throw a few extra vegetables on the grill and keep the butter on the side.
