Meanwhile, here is Ben who wants to know not whether eating meat is wrong (his mind is already made up about that), but whether it is wrong merely to refrain from eating meat himself while not attempting to convince others, including his nearest and dearest, that eating meat is wrong.

And here is AnnJo, whose mind is already made up that eating meat is not wrong, and that Ben’s reasons for thinking that it is are based on delusions, so that Ben may be in need of psychiatric help. The kindest thing one can say about this is that it is completely unresponsive.

The way in which vast numbers of animals are treated so that people may eat them could easily appear to a rational, non-deluded mind to be very wrong indeed. Certain behaviours could easily convince a rational, non-deluded mind that animals do not want to be tortured and killed, and that they possess a consciousness sufficiently similar to human consciousness that the right of a human not to be tortured and killed should in some cases be extended to an animal. A rational, non-deluded mind could at the very least take the view that even if eating animals is not morally wrong, environmental and economic factors mean that the world would be a much better place if people didn’t raise animals for food on a global scale.

We imagine on the one hand a Ben who asked whether he should try to convince his loved ones that eating bananas was fundamentally wrong, given that they believed otherwise. We would,I trust, try to persuade him not to – his loved ones would either shun his society or send for the men in white coats, a sacrifice on Ben’s part that would seem to us absurd.

And we imagine on the one hand a Ben who asked whether he should try to convince his loved ones that eating people was fundamentally wrong, given that they believed otherwise. We would, I trust, urge him to use every means of persuasion in his power – but at the slightest sign that these were unavailing, to take to his heels in the general direction of the horizon lest his disjecta membra end up among the caramelized onions, a sacrifice that we should also consider absurd.

But here is Ben still, who believes something that those around him do not believe but that many rational, non-deluded minds elsewhere in the world do believe. It isn’t for us to tell him that his beliefs are wrong, but to provide what help we can with his true predicament. Many here have done that, and I have nothing to add to their thoughtful contributions.

I don’t know if I’m any better with words than you are, but here’s another example that may be more relevant to the matter at hand:

(Trigger warning for racism and human trafficking.)

Is it wrong to buy, own, and sell human beings like they’re pieces of property? Of course it is. Was it just as wrong to do so, say, 250 years ago? I would say yes. People 250 years ago were people too, after all.

But I, for one, am not prepared to say that all the people who bought, owned, and sold slaves 250 years ago were bad people. They were a product of a different time, and they were brought up to believe (I imagine) that slavery was normal and acceptable. Certainly some of them were bad people (to the extent that it makes sense to call anyone a “bad person”), but I won’t dismiss any historical person from that era as a bad person merely because he or she owned slaves, without knowing anything else about him or her.

On the other hand, I’m much less inclined to be forgiving of people who engage in human trafficking today. They know (or rather, have no excuse not to know) that what they’re doing is wrong. So I do think it makes sense to judge human traffickers today as “bad people,” even if their actions aren’t objectively any worse than those of the slave owners/traders 250 years ago.

I’m not sure I can clearly explain my meaning about the difference between judging an action and the person, but I will try. Maybe someone who is better with words than I can chime in with a good explanation.

I’ll use an example to try to explain. You’ve probably heard or seen the question posted before, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to keep from starving. My take on this is that, yes, it is morally wrong to take something that isn’t yours, thereby depriving the rightful owner of its use or benefit. However, if a person steals only to avoid starving I would not say that makes them a bad person. So here I judge the action to be bad, without judging the person to be bad.

“It’s curious that you would “accept” it if Ben’s opinion was that you are a murderer for eating meat, but instead of accepting it, you urged me to abandon my opinion that Ben might be operating under a delusion.”

You make a valid point here, which I’ll try to address. First, let me say that I didn’t urge you to abandon your opinion of Ben. I don’t think that anyone should deny his/herself the option of having his/her own opinion. My complaint was with the level of negativity and judgement that I perceived from your posts. Especially since it is entirely possibly that Ben has read the comments. Having gotten caught up in the debate, however, its possible that I’ve crossed the line to being judgemental myself, which could see hypocritical.

Second, I tend to be more accepting of what people say to me than what people say about others. I think this is probably because I know that I am capable of dealing with such comments without being negatively affected. I don’t, however, know if others have the same ability, so tend to want to stick up for people in the same situation.

It sounds like what you’re saying is the mental-health equivalent of “I can’t be racist because some of my best friends are black” (or “I can’t be misogynist because I love my wife”) – if you meant something else, then I haven’t grasped it.

And again, what are you saying Ben’s delusion/illness/disorder is? I would really like to know.

True enough. However, it seems to me that people who don’t see mental illness as a moral flaw would be unlikely to put “delusional” on the continuum between “misguided” and “evil.”

What exactly are you saying Ben’s delusion is again? Earlier, you were claiming that he was attributing human mental processes to animals, but then it seemed that you’d dropped that claim.

I do want to point out that not everyone sees mental illness as a moral flaw; I don’t, and my concern was mostly about the suggestion in Ben’s letter that his beliefs about animal rights might lead him to damage his important relationships.

I don’t get your statement about “casting judgment on the action, not the person committing the action.” It seems to me that if an action is wrong, it necessarily follows that the actor who knowingly and intentionally engages in it is morally culpable. In fact, the wrongfulness of an action is often measured in the first place by the knowledge and intention of the actor. Besides, my tentative premise that Ben might be suffering from a mental illness actually absolves him of culpability.

It’s curious that you would “accept” it if Ben’s opinion was that you are a murderer for eating meat, but instead of accepting it, you urged me to abandon my opinion that Ben might be operating under a delusion.

Also, even if Ben did mean that eating meat is as bad as murder or child abuse, he would still be casting judgement on the action, not the person committing the action. On the other hand, you are directly calling him delusional and suggesting he may have a mental illness.

Having said all of that, if Ben approached me directly and told me that by eating meat I was as bad as a murderer and child abuser (which he has not said), I would accept his statement as being his opinion. I’m sure there are people who disagree with most every action I take. There are also people who agree with my actions/beliefs.

I’m aware of very few options to “writing his beliefs off as delusional.” “Evil” is much harsher than “delusional” while “misguided” just seems too wimpy a response to someone calling me a murderer and child abuser. Is there an option I’m overlooking?

(I considered and discarded the currently popular option of “non-judgmentalism.” A mind that refuses to make judgments about ideas might as well be switched off. I can at least appreciate that Ben hasn’t done that.)

“I have no quarrel with choosing a vegetarian or vegan diet for health reasons, economy (both personal and national), or even distaste for the mechanics of getting your dinner on the table. The first two are rational grounds and the latter is a matter of temperament, I suppose. But Ben is elevating his choice to something much more grandiose.”

AnnJo,

Its apparent that because you disapprove of Ben’s cause (not vegetarianism/veganism itself, but his reasoning) you are unable to appreciate his sacrifice. I doubt that any amount of debating is going to change your mind. Surely, however, you can accept that others do appreciate his sacrifice (and that of others like him) and not simply write his beliefs off as delusional. I understand that you disagree with the strength of his conviction, but having a difference of opinion does not make one delusional. I disagree with your assessment of Ben, yet I don’t think you are delusional. Can you at least grant him the same consideration?

I *am* troubled by some of Ben’s specific language (the murder and child abuse analogies), for the reasons I explained in my first comment here, but I don’t think it’s symptomatic of any deeper troubles. Again, it’s normal for people who are just starting to think about this stuff to think in terms of analogies between violence against animals and violence against humans. Most of us get over it, some don’t; I hope Ben will.

As for whether making the analogy to murder is implicitly justifying violence: No. It is not. Most veg*ns abhor violence in all forms, including (in my case anyway) the death penalty for murderers. A few – who, it is said, are veg*n not because they love animals, but because they hate people – have been known to advocate or threaten violence (usually against vivisectors, not meat eaters). I think these people are abominable, and what they’re doing is a form of terrorism. However, of all the cases of animal-rights terrorism I’ve heard of, I’ve never heard of any in which actual bodily harm was inflicted on anyone.

Compare that to the anti-abortion zealots, who have multiple assaults and murders to their names, and who take pride in that record. How very “pro-life” of them.

When someone likens eating meat to “murder and child abuse” and wonders whether he is morally obligated to “force that belief” onto others, I would categorize that as zealotry.