Thursday, November 22, 2012

To Kill Or Not To Kill

I was born into a Brahmin family where my grand parents on both sides were pure vegetarians, of the purest kind! My Dida used to tell me how even bread from outside was not allowed inside their home although the rationale behind that, I have now forgotten. And my Dadaji, till this day does not eat even onion or garlic which I find a bit extreme. But despite all this, I grew up as a hardcore non-vegetarian. In part, because my father developed a taste for meat & fish in his college days and used to eat it frequently, and in part also because of my mother, who although a vegetarian herself, did not want to impose her beliefs on us (me and my brother). She wanted us to be open to both and decide for ourselves. Of course, we both went the butter chicken way.

Anyhow, coming back to the present - A couple of days back I found myself having the veg. vs. non-veg. debate with a vegan friend. I thought I could crush any argument and easily defend my choice, but then I recalled an incident from my childhood days and in a flash I knew I was wrong.

I must have been about fifteen, when I happened by chance to be in a butcher shop. I had never been inside one before and didn't really know what to expect. The act of killing the animal, which must necessarily precede it's cooking, had somehow never entered mind in all these years of eating meat!!! The butcher very nonchalantly pulled out a chicken from the cages and held it up high with his left hand. It was squawking furiously, knowing what was to come. Using the knife in his right hand, he made a violent slice across the jugular, threw the chicken in a nearby drum and pressed the lid down waiting for it to bleed to death, all the while engaged in bargaining with the customer for the price of the dying animal.

Apart from the horrible sound and movements the chicken made, a single drop of blood came flying across the room and landed neatly on my left wrist. Needless to say, I was extremely disturbed by what I witnessed and vowed never to touch meat again. This intense feeling lasted about three or four months, but at some point I must have succumbed and began eating again, suppressing the memory somewhere deep inside. But now that the memory has been retrieved again, it changes everything for me...

I have to admit that in all honesty, I cannot defend meat eating from a moral or ethical stand point. It is wrong to cause avoidable harm. In fact, if I was required to kill an animal for meat, barring extreme situations like being stranded without food etc., I would not be able to do it. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite but it's just that we are so far removed from the realities of the butcher shops and slaughter houses, that we have become desensitized to the sight of seeing dead animal parts on our plates.

Now once again I find myself at the cross roads. When I think about eating meat now, I am transported back to that fifteen year old who was disgusted by what he saw. I can't believe that it was only five days ago that I was devouring butter chicken at Moti Mahal in Delhi. The way I feel right now, I don't see myself being able to eat or enjoy meat again, but only time will tell how strong my resolve is...

19 comments:

  1. Ah the Age old debate... And yes I am very sure that most of Non-vegans out there who have witnessed an animal being butchered share the same sense of sudden development of turning into vegetarians. Been there done that :P

    On the other hand, we propagate the idea of "survival of the fittest". Isn't this on the same lines? We kill these defenseless animals so that we can eat and survive. Some (read Vegans) would say that we could all survive on plants, but aren't they living too?? If so, then aren't we killing them for our consumption.. Food for thought!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very interesting point you've raised. The sanctity built up around animal life as opposed to plant life is a human/societal creation. And therefore, the question of whether such an "arbitrarily drawn" dividing line, gives the people on one side the right to take the moral high ground on the others, is a very valid question. I think it all hinges upon whether the division between plant and animal life is "arbitrary" or whether there is in fact a fundamental difference which exists between them regardless of man. Ponder on this more, I shall...

      Delete
    2. Nice post Anuj!
      hmmm...nice debate you both!
      I think its all about perception. The fact that we can see the color of blood and hear the screams of an animal in pain, is what divides the vegans from the non-vegetarians. The plants don't bleed or make disturbing sounds when you cut them.
      At the end of the day it is about compassion. If you understand the pain of a defenseless being you'd protect it. Same analogy applies when your heart goes out for a destitute on the street who cannot feed himself - why don't you see it as survival of the fittest, shrug and walk away?

      Delete
    3. Anuj, Yes please do ponder... Might inspire u to write some more :D

      Pavi, Since this is highly debatable, I am not going to entertain this further but on a parting note, So you're saying that just because someone bleeds, it shows pain, so we shouldn't kill them. But since plants can't communicate, you're claiming it's right to kill them.. Quite a fact... All I am saying is that both of us are right and wrong here at the same time...

      Delete
    4. Omg , if i am not wrong that vegan frnd of yours was me !?! I am not gonna debate here . I have always tried to convince ppl to quit non-veg but i guess you are the only person to whom i hardly conveyed anything but it made an impact , I guess it was always on your head . I somehow feel guilty for making someone leave something they liked .I always thought i will feel good on converting a non-vegan to a vegan but frankly speaking am feeling that i did something wrong !!

      Delete
    5. But there is one point i would like to make Sankalp , if ppl were given two choices to do:
      1. Pluck any veg food ,cook(dont) and eat it.
      2. Pick and animal ,do all req to kill it by yourself and then cook it .

      Tell me how many of non-veg ppl will still go for the second option ?

      Delete
    6. Pavi, I think the difference between plants and animals you have pointed out is a valid one. still not sure if us not being able to hear plants scream makes it ok as compared to non-veg. need to find a more fundamental difference that transcends our sensory organs!

      Sankalp, must say am impressed with the maturity you have shown in resisting from replying although you would be seeing a gazillion holes and flaws in my line of reasoning :) just a personal decision and non trying to convince you or anyone in any way!!t hanks for getting that!!

      Snehal, haha. yes that vegan friend is you!! but don't feel bad. you simply triggerred a memory when you said you found the idea of killing an animal disgusting. I realized how I did too and had simply forgotten. And it is the memory of the incident which has motivated me. but I love the question you have put. and my answer is option 1 and that is exactly why I decided to abstain. I feel that if I cannot kill, than I should not eat.

      Delete
    7. I'm late in this discussion but I'll join the debate. I find Snehal's set of choices quite arbitrary. One's decision might change if I provide another set of two arbitrary choices.

      1. Grow a vegetable plant and paddy field, harvest, cook and eat it.
      2. Pick an animal, kill it and eat it.

      Now, given these choices, I'll probably train myself to get used to the gory activity of killing an animal and eating it because it is more convenient and efficient, given my busy life.

      Note that homo sapiens were taking similar decisions during the course of human evolution. However, in that case, it wasn't a matter of convenience. It was a matter of availability of food. Human beings were hunter gatherers earlier and food was scarce. Once they learnt agriculture, they gave up hunting because agriculture provided food in a more reliable and predictable manner.

      Delete
    8. Susam, I'd like to point out that snehal's choice set assumes both vegetables and meat are easily available for purchase in the market and is therefore reducing the problem to a moral one. I do not find it arbitrary at all. on the other hand, your choice set does seem very arbitrary and unfairly skewed towards inducing a desired response. you are trying to look at it as a problem of convenience. but if you take choice 1 back to growing crops then you must also take choice 2 back to hunting the animal. But then, the time and effort required to learn hunting, in additon to the effort of hunting daily and risking some bodily harm etc. might cause youto rethink? am I wrong?

      quired

      Delete
    9. Anuj, I see the point in Snehal's comment now, and I agree, given the set of choices written by her, most non-vegetarians would opt to eat plants rather than animals, mostly out of compassion.

      Delete
    10. Nice post Anuj and very interesting comments too.Lot of perspectives from people.When I got converted into a vegan,I was young and the decision was very simple for me..I just loved pets and could relate the animals that I eat to the ones that I like...
      Might be the last to join the bandwagon, but wanted to add a few things if you are still in a confusion to choose the Blue pill or the Red pill

      1 Survival of Fittest - Homo-Sapiens are animals too...Why just stop at dumb animals huh????

      2. You might also want to see this youtube video...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1pFSnU9Pc
      Some of the things mentioned by Inderdeep Singh below are talked about in this video

      We can never see past the choices we don't understand!!!!

      Delete
  2. A few days ago I saw a documentary on an abattoir, I was evidently grossed out by what was shown. It's all about money to them but I simply can't stop eating meat (and enjoy it). Surprisingly my parents stopped and now consume what I call 'gsass-puss' but honestly, don't you think it's about survival? We live on the coast so we should eat fish. In African countries, people eat all sorts of meat and even insects (primarily the desert areas)! To me, It's about whats convenient and what works best in one's diet. Nonetheless, kudos to you bro, you did well. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Point of clarification: Is the grounds for compassion "the pain and suffering of the animal" or "anuj's reactions to the pain & suffering". In the former case, I will encourage you to read this paper: http://www.ekmaninternational.com/media/4634/fearbrain%20amygdala%20joe%20ledoux.pdf
    (the cliff notes version of the argument is that in humans an emotions has 2 components...say u see a snake...u will freze adrenaline bla bla the amygdula mediated responses...but the "i am afraid" part of it is a higher cortical response which one can argue might not be as widely present in the animal kingdom since higher cortical regions are present in few species - so the pain u experience is very different from the "pain" a chicken experiences)
    In the latter, that is an argument that can only be extended to the individual in question and not be extended to vegetarianism in any way...

    As far as i know there are 2 good arguments for vegetarianism,1) ecological impact of 1 gram of animal protein is far higher than plant based protein and may limit sustaining a large human population 2) animals may have consciousness and thus killing them is close to murder. (this is a debate in itself)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wanted to read the paper before responding. I have now and I understand your point. I must confess, it is the latter. It did not even occur to me that the pain experienced by the animal would be of a different kind than one experienced in humans, but nonetheless it is pain. Therefore, I concede that this argument applies only to me and I cannot extend it to vegetarianism in any way. The best way I can summarize it is - If I were to eat meat now, being aware of my aversion for the killing process, then it would be akin to accepting a mathematical proof without agreeing with the axioms it is based on. Someone else may find the axiom acceptable and therefore conclude that the proof is indeed correct. Since axioms cannot really be proved, in the same way, the choice between veg. and non-veg. diet remains a subjective one.

      Delete
  4. think of butterchicken and then think no more.... !

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It will go for very long if you aren't doing it for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think vegetarian vs non-vegetarian is also a geo choice: If you live in a very cold climate then maybe meat is essential to keep you warm.
    Being veg is a more ecologically sound choice but so very few of us can change dietary habits to suit our eco-beliefs.
    In today's world, animals are 'farmed' pretty much like crops and actually quite pumped with hormones and anti-biotics... so it may not be that healthy a choice either... but if you were to eat free-range meat/poultry, mercury-free fish then you do get concentrated calories, without a lot of toxic chemicals.
    From a moral perspective, I have no comments really but a question: Should food choices at all be judged by moral standards... possibly if you see what we do to the animals we farm, then maybe that is grounds for not eating meat... Maybe.
    On the other hand eating what you hunt and skinning it and using the hide for leather and/or is an activity that man has been doing for very long and it is justified to a large extent. You hunt as much as you need and you are actually part of the natural balance between predator and prey. You do know that all species need to be culled if they are protected from natural culling else their populations would become unmanageable...(besides, nowadays, we don't need fur, we have Acrylic instead and micro-fibres instead!)

    To cut a rambling comment short.....1. food choices are also habits and probably among the most difficult to change.... 2. While we can make compassionate food choices, we do need to take our calorific needs, dietary preferences and bodily abilities to process the food into account (inability caused by allergies, diseases such as diabetes especially... and other problems) 3. In our rush-through-the-day lifestyle, foods like eggs and grilled chicken/fish do offer considerable convenience and versatility. 3.They also fit in better with low carb lifestyles... 4. I wouldn't come down too hard on the moral grounds for being veg... I think morality is too large an issue to be defined by your food choice. No point being veg for moral reasons and very pious about it but at the same time being corrupt or scheming or simply mean and vindictive... Food is a survival thing too and can't label you as virtuous or tar you as sinner.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just found your blog, good work and keep going. And of all the articles, I chose this to comment. I wonder why :-) By the way, great discussion you had with others, hope I won't spoil it with my comment.

    Our emotions and the moral compass that attracts us to certain things and repulses us from others are indeed very important devices for human morality and ethics. The effect that your childhood experience had on you is thus understandable given that that was your first and I assume your last encounter with a slaughtered chicken.

    But a lot of these feelings can change with experience and persistence. There are various kinds of inhibitions that we are born with and perhaps some that we develop in the social circumstances we live in. You feel bad against your inhibitions the first few times but over time it stops affecting you.

    So, while the moral compass is a great guide and one we must never lose sight of, it is not a perfect arbiter of right and wrong. Is it okay to eat plants but not animals or is it okay to eat certain animals and not others or perhaps it is okay to eat animals but not humans. For answers to these, I believe we need to look beyond the contexts of our circumstances and even of our existence.

    ReplyDelete