Hi Yardstick,
cooked meat still rots in your gut.
We could begin a scientific debate on if the human intestinal tract is more omnivore or herbivore. However, I'm not really interested in that debate right here. Suffice it to say that since the earliest times (assuming you believe in evolution) humankind has lived as an omnivore. We have evolved to digest both animal and plant tissue. However, I would encourage you--and all of us--to further research this issue.
Why do you choose to not remove animal products from your diet?
Good question. The short answer is, while I feel that eating excessive animal products (in particular, milk products) is unhealthy for the body, complete abstinance is not healthy. Our bodies have evolved to need both animal and plant products, but neither to excess. (On the same note, consumption of wheat and other grains is quite recent in human evolution, and excessive consumption of these is not healthy. As you can see, my original post is quite old. I'm now more of a "paleo-diet" adherent.)
You seem to acknowledge that their is something wrong with eating animals so why wouldn't you make the jump to a vegetarian diet?
My feelings about this issue have developed over the years, and probably will continue to do so. As I struggle with the existence of spirit/god/objective rights, I recognize that, from all measures that we can see, humans and other animals differ only in degree, not in kind. When I'm more orientented towards Christianity, however, I tend to see an "image of God" issue that makes man special. Currently, I remain on the fence...I don't see an objective reason, outside of divine revelation, to give humankind this special status.
Here's how I see it: I make no moral judgments on life consuming life. I do not judge a wolf for eating the deer, or the gorilla for eating the grub. That's what they've evolved/been created to do. If there is an apparent difference with humanity, it's that we have a degree of empathy with the deer and grub, recognizing that this causes suffering for the victim. But that's the way the universe is, neither moral nor immoral. The Christian idea of the fall says that the universe isn't supposed to be that way...but I question the validity of that view. It looks like life consuming life has been the way of our world for millions and millions of years.
But humans, because of their empathy (not that it isn't visible in other creatures--it can be seen in many other carnivorous and omnivorious creatures who nonetheless still eat their vicitims--such as the bonobo, our closest living relative, who may befriend monkies, make them pets and play with them, and later eat them), struggle with this. We don't want to cause suffering because we wouldn't like that suffering caused to us--the golden rule is built into our psychology.
But why? Is it the suffering that is wrong, or death itself? If death is the cessation of existence, why is it so bad? And if nature is built with so much death, and the animal kingdom participates in this cycle of death and life, why does humanity think it alone of all creatures must be "above" it all?
At present, I abhore suffering, but I question why we should abhore death. Pain is, well, painful and should be avoided--we should try not to cause it. But is death, itself, an evil? If so, why is killing and eating plants ok? (They do not suffer--they have no nervous system for suffering--but they do die.)
Of course, this leads to another issue, and that is the morality of intra-species killing (humans killing humans). We have a strong evolutionary drive to preserve our own gene pool, but also a strong evolutionary xenophobia that can drive a lot of behavior to kill other humans. We now believe this to be morally wrong. (But again, is it the killing that is wrong, or the suffering)?
In the end, it's a question of values--but you can't point to something in the universe and say "see, here is an objective reason why killing/causing suffering is wrong". You might point to pragmatic reasons (e.g., don't kill and eat your neighbors, because you might get into trouble), but no objective ones. Of course, if there is a God who has truly revealed that this is wrong, then the question is quite different.
Flexatarian just sounds inconsistent.
It is if you do it out of weakness, because your lust for meat outweighs a moral conviction that killing animals (but not plants) is not good. However, if eating meat does not cause you moral issues (for whatever reason), it can be very consistent.
Daniel
