Vegetarianism is a highly debated topic, and people on both sides of the argument are very passionate about their positions. This is because of the many controversies involved with the topic, the most argued being the mistreatment of animals raised solely for the purpose of food. Other controversies include health concerns and benefits of a plant based diet vs. an omnivorous one, as well as the allowed freedom to choose one’s own diet.
The difficulty of this argument is a lack of understanding between the traditionalists and the progressivists. Farmers (often traditionalists) see a farm with animals that supply an earning to support their families. If we stop eating meat en masse, their source of income is lost. Traditionalists also usually see animals as a non-communicable, meaning it’s okay to utilize them as a resource. Most also believe that eating animals is just a part of our ecosystem and far too many people place human nature on animal nature.
Utilitarian progressivists would state that it is our duty to do that which causes the greatest amount of good and the least amount of bad. It is easy to see how this theory would clash with the traditionalists. Non-human animals are still sentient beings. An animal knows when it feels pain (physical and emotional) thus we ought not do that which may cause it pain. Raising animals for food becomes completely unethical.
The benefits and disadvantages to eating meat vs. not eating meat are often argued as well. Although it is usually agreed that vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle, many argue that eliminating meat from ones diet will lower ones protein supplies to a dangerous level. There are many ways to avoid this protein shortage however, such as eating more protein from other sources.
As it seems, the utilitarians have a pretty strong argument, but the traditionalists have one more question: If what I eat is regulated by some moral code, what other liberties and rights may I lose in the future? The answer is simple: what we are and are not allowed to eat is already regulated by the government. It is illegal for humans to eat other humans, dog, and cats. There are many places where eating these and other animals may not be illegal, yet still socially unacceptable. Places like this include the middle east where eating a cow in certain areas is considered blasphemy.
The utilitarians (or progressives) clearly have a stronger argument, and it seems that we ought to start doing something to change the daily eating habits of our species. So why then, are we still eating meat? I think there are two reasons for this. The first is that the message hasn’t been practical enough for the traditionalists to give up on their old way and adopt this new way of thinking. The second is because there are a lot of questions regarding the immediate consequences of change. Where will the animals we have go? How will we feed the animals without farming income? What do we do about pets? The list goes on. There may be an answer in evolutionary progressivism.
Evolutionary progressivism states that we ought to do that which creates the most desirable outcome immediately and throughout eternity. Thus it is our duty to do everything in our power to enhance and support the mental and physical evolution of sentient creatures, keeping the evolution of all species equally important. This theory applies to our argument of vegetarianism perfectly; it answer the question of morality, it will provide hints on health benefits, and most importantly it will offer simple effective solutions to the problems leftover by the utilitarians.
Clearly, if we adopt this theory we will know it is morally wrong to eat and abuse sentient creatures, so eating meat would no longer be morally acceptable even if it was raised on a small farm. We now know it is our duty to do what we can to help all other species with whom humans aren’t capable of communicating reach the highest achievable evolution — although while focusing on the evolution of other animals, we can not forget about advancing our evolution as well. This may mean finding ways to help our bodies cope with the lack of protein and other dietary worries that will come about.
Instead of the farmers losing their jobs, they will more than likely be some of the first people hired to take care of animals in shelters, rehabilitation clinics, and other new businesses set to advance the evolution of species. Pets will be acceptable, if not recommended for the evolutionary enforcement. Evolutionary progressivism puts multiple practical solutions on a diverse question, while unifying the problems into one big picture perspective. We must treat all non-human animals on the same level as we treat ourselves, if not higher.
We have seen how evolutionary progressivism can help us with the debate over vegetarianism, but realistically what else can it do for us? I believe that if we focus our time and energy positively molding the evolution of species one day in the future all species will be reasoning, communicating beings that will have the capacity to think, learn and teach other species. At that point we will be able to work together to further the evolution of everything else, leading to the the most advanced planet. Although this is way off in the future, there is no telling what might happen if we don’t start thinking this way.
The are a limited number of known living creatures in our universe. We all live on the same planet, and for now, we largely consider it to be socially acceptable to eat most of them. If we want our species to last forever, I think it’s important that we make sure all other known species do, too. We can do this by helping them evolve, and by choosing not to eat them.
