I have a lot of respect and admiration for vegans.
In fact, if you oppose the meat industry on ethical grounds, then as far as I
can see, you should be a vegan, not a vegetarian. Being a vegetarian doesn't
appear to satisfy the dual aim of opposing the meat industry on ethical grounds and
avoiding hypocrisy. This analysis, of course, precludes people who are
vegetarian on non-ethical grounds, but merely on the grounds that they do not
like the taste of meat. This analysis also assumes that it is right to keep and kill
animals humanely to cause the least amount of pain and discomfort.
Generally, then, as far as I can tell, there are two contrasting positions that one can take on this matter.
1) Meat-Eating
One is to eat meat, on the basis of several
arguments one could make in favour of it using a cost-benefit analysis.
Everyone knows the costs of meat-eating, but those costs can be measured up
against the benefits - the strongest of which are, in my view; that we've
evolved for hundreds of thousands of years on a meat-based diet, meaning there
are likely to be some physical optimisations based on such a diet; that the
meat industry provides lots of social utility in terms of pleasure, jobs and
many other associative benefits; and that most animals wouldn't get the chance
to be born at all without the meat industry (that's a complex philosophical
consideration that is too large in scope for this post, but you get the gist).
Whether you agree with these arguments or not, these (and other arguments) are generally
put forward by those who choose to eat meat.
2) Veganism
Vegans have an almost opposite approach; they not
only refuse to eat meat, they also refuse to eat anything related to animal
products at all. Their argument for doing so is to oppose the animal industry
on ethical grounds, due to the amount of animal suffering caused by the
practice of meat eating.
As far as I'm concerned, both positions deserve respect, and it's up to the individual's conscience and reasoning in deciding their position. Perhaps with Omniscience we'd be able to comprehensively justify the meat-eating industry by weighing up all the benefits against the costs. On the other hand, perhaps the vegans are the only ones making the most profound moral advancements, especially in the context of contemporary innovation and viable alternatives. I'm open to both propositions.
However, what does seem to me to be problematic is the vegetarian position - it seems like a weak and inadequate objection to the ethics of the meat industry. Vegetarians reason that in not eating meat directly, but still enjoying animal products (like eggs, milk, etc), they are trying to take an ethical position, but not going as far as denying themselves many of the foods that vegans are forgoing. They appear to me to be trying to have their free-range-egg-cake and eat it. But here's the problem; continuing the example with eggs, the egg industry isn't just about not eating meat - around 7 billion male chicks are culled each year worldwide, because obviously only female chicks are beneficial in the egg-laying industry, and because these male chicks are a different breed to the ones used for chicken meat.
Even so-called ethical egg consumption involves the killing of billions of new born chicks - so, as far as I can see, there are only two reasonable positions to take. One is to renounce the whole industry of animal products, and become a vegan; the other is to accept that animal consumption comes with both costs and benefits, and make a case for meat-eating when weighing up everything positive and negative about the industry. I just cannot make an ethical case for vegetarianism - it seems morally inferior to veganism, and only a half-hearted attempt to make an ethical stand against the animal industry.
Perhaps the vegetarian would argue that their food consumption policy is based on a matter of gradation, in that there are some actions they won't justify and some they will. Perhaps they reason that killing cattle is not acceptable, but culling chicks is permissible, in order to enable egg consumption. Clearly vegetarians must endorse some animal products that vegans wouldn't, otherwise those vegetarians would presumably also be vegans. But I don't think most vegetarians would consider that culling chicks is permissible, which may mean there is some inconsistency and ethical defect in vegetarianism that isn't found in meat-eating or veganism.
