A certain friend is not a vegetarian; nor does he eat all meat. His ethically-informed diet is not as comprehensive as Jain vegetarianism, but does seem morally superior to "bacon tastes good; pork chops taste good." He only eats the flesh of animals which themselves consume other animals.

I found that this perspective has a founding father, who illustrated the philosophy with a memorable anecdote.

    I believe I have omitted mentioning that in my first Voyage from Boston, being becalm'd off Block Island, our People set about catching Cod & hawl'd up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my Resolution of not eating animal Food; and on this Occasion, I consider'd with my Master Tryon, the taking every Fish as a kind of unprovoked Murder, since none of them had or ever could do us any Injury that might justify the Slaughter. All this seem'd very reasonable.

    But I had formerly been a great Lover of Fish, & when this came hot out of the Frying Pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between Principle & inclination: till I recollected, that when the Fish were opened, I saw smaller Fish taken out of their Stomachs:

    Then, thought I, if you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you. So I din'd upon Cod very heartily and continu'd to eat with other People, returning only now & then occasionally to a vegetable Diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do.



rooibos:

From a personal health standpoint, it's no better or worse than omnivorism.

From a moral standpoint, one could argue against carnivorophagism by saying that carnivores have evolved in such a way that presently, they do not have a choice but to eat meat, whereas we have the choice to or not to, and that gives us an option they cannot consider.

Environmentally, carnivorophagism would be almost certainly worse than omnivorism, because of the second law of thermodynamics.


posted 3809 days ago