Philosophical Confession: I love meat
Famed philosopher Peter Singer championed an argument in favor of vegetarianism back in the mid-seventies. His reasoning is a paragon of articulate and persuasive moral philosophy. Singer argues that the ability to suffer is the condition for moral consideration. If something has moral consideration, then we should take its interest into account. So, since non-human animals experience suffering, then it follows that we should take their interests into account and not mistreat, kill, or eat them. Most humans are "speciecist," Singer claims, by treating non-human animals as purely a means to and end because they taste good.
The formal argument is more rigorous than this presentation (see my Just The Arguments in the Fall), but the spirit is captured. I find this argument compelling, as do many others. He makes a strong case, and demonstrates philosophy at its best--accessible, relevant, and with consequences. People should read Singer and think "I should probably be a vegetarian."
But yet, I eat meat.
And I love to eat meat. I'm not sure I'm quite as fanatical about delicious, perfectly cooked and sauced meat as Anthony "Pork is the answer to all problems" Bourdain, but I'm pretty damned close. Living in a foodie wonderland like San Francisco has only made my culinary vices thrive: dim sum pork buns in the morning, carne asada super burritos for lunch, and beautifully braised short ribs when the sun goes down.
Cognitive dissonance - oh, how I understand now! Is meat a key ingredient to link the religious and the secular?
This tension between the analytic reasoning and my guttural passion for crispy-skinned, roasted chicken helps me relate when discussing issues in other areas. For example, Western philosophy has a rich history of arguing --successfully, I believe--against the existence of Judeo-Christian deities. It can be extremely frustrating, though enlightening, to have someone agree that an argument is essentially correct and yet still not change their opinion or belief. If I am debating the existence of god--or anything else for that matter--and I have a sound argument, but my participant retorts with "like, whatever" I used to be dumbfounded. Philosophers, if I can generalize, want people to change their behaviors and worldviews based on reason and argument. It can feel infuriating when it doesn't happen. It can make the whole project of philosophy seem pointless if the conclusions are not convincing enough to persuade people.
Eating meat internalizes this process for me. The Aristotelian voice in my psyche is judging my Gordon Ramsay impulses. I can now begin to relate to the "whatever" mindset because I fully acknowledge my contradictory attachments. Tonight I'm making my signature dish as part of guest blogging for an up-and-coming cooking blog written by a philosophy grad student turned food blogger.
Continue reading here: Caesar bomb salad, filet mignon with balsamic onions and roasted mashed potatoes...
My go-to steak and potato dish
