A Note About Mr. Kristof’s Commentary
Print This Post
Mr. Kristof would prefer that his consumption of meat not inflict gratuitous suffering.
“Needless” and “unnecessary” are synonyms for “gratuitous” according to my English thesaurus. Separating need from want is helpful. “Need” denotes a requirement – I need to drink water to live. “Want” suggests a preference – I need water, but I want orange juice.
The American Dietetic Association found that a well-planned vegan and vegetarian diet is healthy at all stages of the life cycle. Carl Lewis is one of the most prolific Olympic track and field athletes in history, and Robert Cheeke is a professional bodybuilder. These men found athletic success while not eating meat, dairy, or eggs.
Eating animals is unnecessary for optimal health. Any suffering an animal experiences to become Mr. Kristof’s “food” therefore is gratuitous.
Mr. Kristof can avoid this apparent ethical contradiction by doing one thing: going vegan.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
I found that last sentence especially laughable… “I would PREFER that my consumption of meat not inflict GRATUITOUS suffering”… so presumably, he can totally live with his diet causing suffering in general; it’s just a nice touch if that icky “gratuitous” suffering is avoided. Note also the use of the subjunctive; this is about as softball as you get when it comes to making a stand.
The contributors (and, judging by the online commentary, readers) of the NYT seem to follow a set pattern w/r/t eating animals: as long as they “acknowledge” suffering and death, as long as they write at length about how much they “appreciate the animal’s sacrifice”, they are absolved. (A corollary, also popular among NYT writers: paying extra for the moral reassurance that comes with “grass-fed”, “humane-certified”, “happy” meat.)
Of course, none of this ethical gymnastics makes a lick of difference to the animal on the plate, who’s still just as dead as he or she would have been had Nicholas Kristof not uttered a little prayer against “gratuitous suffering” before tucking in.
I think those words: “choice” and “preference” are trigger words that help nonvegans better understand and accept the position that factory farming is EVIL.
While we can (and should) disagree with such word use, I think those words are effective in shaping the general public’s perception of their responsibility. It helps them realize that they play a role in this, too, and that they can’t just shrug the blame onto animal agribusiness.
If they don’t support suffering, they MUST act like they don’t support suffering. But they don’t hear that when we tell them; they hear it when they’re told that they have a “choice” or “preference.” They hear it better when they don’t feel threatened or worried that we’re going to take their meat away from them.
I agree 100% with what Alex wrote. However, I do believe Kristof’s articles will ‘move the middle’ and help foster a more compassionate society that’s closer to the vegan ideal.