WHO LIKES the idea of fox hunting? Doesn't rattle your conscience? What about tiger, deer or any other animal hunting? To most, the idea of killing animals for pleasure is pretty wrong. And so it should be. With the ease with which anyone can obtain all sorts of affordable food, I propose that eating meat today is essentially the same thing.
People often cite tradition when justifying their meat-eating habits (“It wouldn't be Christmas without a turkey”), but since when has tradition been a proper justification for anything? Subjugating women was once tradition in this country; obviously that doesn't make it alright. Tradition is a weak and primitive justification for anything; the individual and society need to move on with what they see as right and wrong. Apart from the effort of changing your cooking and eating routine, I can't think of any other reason for being an omnivore apart from following the whim of your taste buds.
Anyone can be as healthy just eating vegetables and fruit as they can eating meat. Protein is often said to be lacking in a meat-free diet, but this can easily be obtained from milk, nuts and many other products. It's just as convenient and cheap to be vegetarian. In fact, I've found it saves me money and that I'm healthier, but that fact is superfluous to the argument.
What worries me most is not those who accept this and accede that they love meat (I did eat meat for nineteen years; it is very difficult to give up), but the self-deceit and warped morality expressed by usually very reasonable people in trying to deny this truth. Friends have argued that humans have a right to kill animals as they so wish. However, is it then okay for anyone to go around killing deer, lions or little puppy dogs just for kicks? Again, the amount of choice in food products we have means that for consistency, one would have to accept the idea of hunting for fun if they were to morally defend the consumption of meat. Most would normally be completely against this idea, but when faced with this logic, conviction begins to falter. In other words, in this case our morality is shaped by the desire to enjoy the taste of meat.
If we can't face up to the truth concerning the trivial matter of what we eat, what hope do we have when far greater material interests are challenged? Surely, we will be so weak that we will continue to deceive ourselves, to cover our eyes and ears and pretend not to see or hear. Furthermore, what hope do we have if we cannot control our desires? For the individual, I believe this amounts to a lack of well-being. When we allow our material interests to override our virtues, it's ourselves that suffer as we neglect our own happiness for the pursuit of objects and cheap stimuli.
Perhaps more importantly, on a societal level it's everyone who loses out. Consider the environment and the continued use of short-haul flights, cars, etc. Pretty much everyone today accepts the need to not contribute unnecessarily to climate change and yet, as a society, we continue to go against these convictions. Through attitudes towards vegetarianism we see two worrying trends. The first is a failure to accept truth when it threatens our material interests. The second is a failure to adapt our behaviour to our moral codes.
Before rejecting any idea or principle - in this case vegetarianism - we need to think of all of its implications. “Do I respect an animal's life enough not to kill it to satiate my carnal desires?” This thought led me to an affirmative. If no, do you then believe that it's fine for people to go and kill animals for pleasure? Hopefully this idea will make you think that eating meat is wrong and that not killing animals for gratification is right. Hopefully your sense of right and wrong will shape your thoughts rather than your desire for a chicken vindaloo or a kebab.
I would fully support you if you wished to kill and eat any animal on the planet, which has been bred solely for said purpose. Whether it is a puppy or a lion it is your decision to do so. I eat meat which was raised to be eaten, were I not to eat it the animal would never have been born. By not eating it I would not be saving it's life, or doing it any favor whatsoever, I would merely be preventing it's birth.
That said it's far more likely that rather than preventing it's conception the farmer would either abort the foetus or even suffocate the calf at birth, making my "loving gesture" a complete waste of time. Perhaps you should look into the wastage of meat and meat products before you get on your high horse, wouldn't it be far more humane for an animal to die for a purpose than for none?