If presented with two food options with identical taste – faux sweet and sour “chicken,” or real sweet and sour chicken – and we select the latter, “real” option, does that imply that we not only take pleasure in eating meat but that we insist on killing an animal?
Bologna is a common food item that is easily mimicked in both taste and “dietary” benefit. We can purchase mock-bologna that tastes, smells, feels, etc. like the real version from the majority of grocery stores. Now, if presented with the alternative version of this lunch meat and the traditional version, will we select the latter, “real” option? If yes, this suggests that mere taste isn’t the impetus for our collective insistence on torturing animals; something internal to us is motivating our desire to kill somebody (NOT something).
As a former omnivore who thoroughly enjoyed sausage, I was eager to find a faux substitute – what my mom accurately calls “make-believe-meat.” My search was short; vegan “sausage” is available, the taste is quite similar if not identical to the traditional version (depending on how it is prepared), and far healthier. Now, if X were to hold both the alternative and “real” versions in front of Y, after Y has been informed of the similarities, etc. between the two, and Y insists on eating a pig, is that telling of the type of person Y is? It seems that we are all Y, which says something about our culture: we demand death, we insist on it!
I don’t know what the impetus is for this; however, it seems reasonable to argue that whatever the motivation it isn’t moral or good.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl