In life, we commonly default to holding a certain opinion or view, prompted by a myriad of factors including the culture of all the groups with which we associate ourselves (our family, our neighborhood, our city, our country, our religion, our sexuality, et cetera) and these in turn inform our choice of actions. Without exposure to new concepts, some of which may contradict things we’ve come to assume are indisputable, we’re stuck with those default beliefs, often to our detriment. Social progress is fueled by new ideas, and personal wisdom likewise results from the process of critically examining new information and choosing to incorporate new elements into our existing world-view. What we eat is obviously as much a product of that process as anything else – but sometimes we have trouble giving honest consideration to the viability of anything less then ‘free omnivorism’, the practice of eating whatever you like. We’re familiar with and grudgingly accept the necessity of expanding or limiting your diet for health reasons, but we treat a doctor’s recommendation to avoid steak in order to guard against a heart attack differently from PETA’s recommendation to avoid leather because of the violence surrounding its creation.

The decision to exercise self control concerning what you eat, wear, and use is a difficult one to make, to the point that many people almost refuse to consider it at all – as though their omnivore status were sacred, unimpeachable, and that the thought of anything less then unabridged freedom of food (much less strict veganism) is actually threatening. When asked to justify your animal consumption, it’s easy to get defensive, easy to ridicule the petitioner later around the barbecue with your meat-eating buddies. In addition. Even if you were to declare that from this day forth never more would you touch anything made from an animal, the amount of research and diligence required to maintain this resolution would seem prohibitive. If it were easy to tell which items contained animal products and which were ‘clean’, it’s likely that the indignant ‘I’ll eat whatever I want!’ attitude would persist, despite the removal of the ‘research and diligence’ barrier. So what is it about the subject that gets us so worked up?

Brainstorming reasons that self-assured omnivores would reject a philosophy of less-inclusive dining doesn’t take much imagination: jealous stubbornness, knowing the ‘right’ thing to do but being unable to do it because it’d involve admitting that they’d been doing the ‘wrong’ thing prior; honest hedonism, accepting the reality of the impact of their decisions and choosing their own pleasure over the condition of the animals sacrificed to facilitate those pleasurable experiences; or maybe even a belief in man’s superiority over lower life-forms, possibly outlined through the popular beliefs of the previously-mentioned groups with which they associate themselves. All this, to justify a course of action which undeniably involves the planned creation and subsequent destruction of life, a situation which abstracted would only be found acceptable by sociopaths. Despite this, animal-rights activists face derision and dismissal, and despite their best efforts, only about 3 percent of adults in the United States (as of 2008) have ‘converted’, or chosen to become a vegetarian. On the one hand, it seems strange that such a friendly, environmentally responsible ethos would fail to catch on – on the other, the fact of its lack of general appeal suggests that the afore-mentioned attributes (stubbornness, hedonism, and superiority) are substantially more powerful motivators then ‘environmental responsibility’.

This determination to disregard alternate points of view ‘out of principle’ is not at all a mature one – and possibly sets a dangerous precedent. Once presented with an alternate point of view, critical-thinking individuals are given the choice to reconsider what has been up to this point a (possibly unconscious) acceptance of (default) cultural norms. When faced with our own reasoning for continuing the consumption of animal products, can we really justify our actions? Biologically speaking, we are perfectly capable of maintaining a comfortable existence in an environment untouched by the ‘use’ of animals. Therefore any benefits or drawbacks concerning consumer preferences in this area are in our own heads, and a matter of morality rather then survival. Defining the essential distinction between humans and animals is a tricky task; Life itself is variously defined, somewhat akin to Justice Potter Stewart’s well-known statement of defiance: “I know it when I see it.” Debate over birth control, abortion, capital punishment, and even riot-control or military operations is an indicator of the wide range of opinions people hold on the subject, and it follows that the debate concerning ‘animal rights’ would be just as complex. Inasmuch as everyone would likely agree that animals are ‘alive’, it would be impossible to get them to consense on the definitive ‘rights’ that living bestows.

Once you’ve decided what constitutes a ‘protected’ form of life, there are a couple of common outlooks to explore: An ‘anti-capitalist’ view encourages safe, fair raising and slaughtering of ‘crop’ animals, and seeks to punish companies that ‘torture’ or use ‘creative marketing’ to sell products that are not what they seem; While ‘animal-lovers’ are opposed to the practice of causing harm to animals in general, and lobby for the complete cessation of ‘animal abuse’. Some people have trouble avoiding getting caught up in ‘what it means’ to be a member of whichever group they share an ethos with, and it’s important to keep in mind that your own personal decision to restrict your animal product consumption is distinct from the activism you choose to engage in – that is, whether you ‘preach what your practice’. The reluctance to participate in activities stereotypically associated with a more strict policy on using animals is another stumbling block that potential ‘converts’ encounter, as the decision to accept an ‘identity’ that is casually ridiculed in your culture is a difficult one.

Ultimately, regardless of how you settle on your views concerning the commodification and subsequent consumption of animals, it’s important to remember that in the grand scheme of things, the marketplace decisions of the average person impact the world on roughly the same scale as voting in a national election – it’s a very small drop in a very big bucket, and yet ironically it’s important (and socially responsible) to act as though it did matter. If your goal for changing the way you consume is merely to satisfy your own moral qualms, then you have a responsibility only to yourself to stay ‘on the wagon’, but if your goal involves a fundamental change in the way that the meat industry operates then you’ve got a responsibility to be an activist, and spread your view to others. Alone, your vote counts for little – in a group, you’re at least a little more effective, and as the number of people you’ve convinced to join you in your protest of the cultural acceptability of animal product consumption grows, so does your power to change things.

Whether you decide to limit your animal product usage or not, whether you decide to become an activist or not, it’s important to make an informed, purposeful decision regarding your feelings on the subject, as with any subject. Everyone has a culturally ‘default’ preference concerning animal consumption, but as a mature individual you have a responsibility to ultimately make your own decisions regarding your actions, and to remain open when others share their own views with you.

Works Cited:

Jasper, James. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography,

and Creativity in Social Movements. University of Chicago Press, 1999.

“How Many People Order Vegetarian Meals When Eating Out?” <http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2008issue3/restaurantpoll.pdf>

The Vegetarian Times “Vegetarianism in America” 2008

Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964)