Joan Crawford: Darling, rare meat is good for you. The doctor said so. Christina, meat loses its vitamins if it's overcooked.

Christina Crawford: But I've had my vitamins this morning. Pills.

Joan Crawford: [to Carol-Ann] She negotiates everything like a goddamn Hollywood agent. Christina, eat your lunch. You are not getting up from this table until you have finished that meat.

-From Mommie Dearest (1981)

In today’s society with the rising demands for people to lead healthier lifestyles, eating vegetarian can be very costly. So when economic issues become the main reason for people to opt for meat-eating, does it then become a more reasonable excuse to eat animals? In other words, is it right in certain situations for people, in essence, to disregard the question of morality for reasons beyond their control?

In terms of the "ought implies can" theory, i think it's a great thing to choose to be vegetarian; but sometimes it just becomes more of a great idea than something that someone can actually stick with. With economic restraints and a hectic lifestyle, it's a true challenge to remain true to a vegetarian diet.

And if one’s excuse for eating vegetarian is to keep the environment safe and healthy, then why not also trash people for owning a car and driving too much, or for using too much electricity and turning on the lights too often? This would appear to contradict nearly ninety percent of the argument about maintaining a meat-eating lifestyle. I opt to eat meat because it is simply a part of my life; I enjoy its taste (although I am not keen on certain meats such as steak and pork), it is a substantial source of protein and dietary requirements, and, generally, I consume the most carefully raised meat available to me; and, relatively, I don’t particularly eat that much of it.

Humans certainly do not tread lightly on this globe. Most all of us are of the same mind that we need to considerably minimize the footprints we are leaving. I would definitely prefer to dispute needless cruelty and pointless overconsumption for a much more long term and enhanced human and worldly wellbeing, than for an austere regimen that the bulk of the planet’s inhabitants will refuse to follow. I believe people can attend to “eat less meat,” and “respect the rights of all living things” and, thus, I can confidently advocate such ideas. But “eat no meat?” In my opinion, the minority of people will not hear that, nor will they support it.

Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

~Author Unknown

Now to undertake the outlook of those on the other end of the spectrum: True, eating animals is perhaps considered inhumane but it surely isn’t un-human. It’s conventional, it’s mainstream, it’s a tradition and just about every person in the world who can eat meat does so.

When morals are used as the chief justification of vegetarianism, then how do vegetarians account for the ethical incongruities common in almost all food production? Billions of insects are killed in the production of grain, fruit, rice, and vegetables through the utilization of pesticides. And even if all this food is truly organic (which is often highly implausible), the plowing, weeding, and harvesting of the crops would harm the lives of insects that (just like animals) experience pain as well. And what about all of the animals dislodged from their natural habitats in order to source such “organic” crops.

Humans are naturally omnivorous. Made evident by everything from our teeth to our digestive system, humans are, by nature, expected to consume both plants and animals. To declare that we should never eat meat would be to go against nature.

Eating meat isn’t a habit we must immediately stop doing wholly all at once. It should, however, gradually be weaned down. Numerous health reports point out that we need to consume more fruits and vegetables; and so to preserve our health, we should. Meat shouldn’t be seen as the central fraction of a meal, but some meat intake is vital for a source of protein and essential fats. And fish, as well, preserves the health of the brain.

I highly agree that any living thing able to feel pleasure or pain deserves moral consideration, but I don't deem it morally wrong to eat animals. What I do believe to be immoral is to cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It’s pleasing to spot a well-run farm, with sheep in the field being corralled by hard-working farm dogs, or a yard occupied by chickens basking in the sunlight. I like it best when I can observe humans showing respect and appreciation to these creatures for their sacrifice to us.

Humans are fortunate to exist at the peak of the food chain. It’s a more probable situation for a human to be slain by another human than by another species. With this advantage, however, comes the responsibility to keep animals from needless harm. Whether you are a vegetarian or not, you should always give our fellow living creatures the respect they deserve.

pro vegetarianism

Dear Father, hear and bless
thy beasts and singing birds
and guard with tenderness
small things that have no words.
-St. Clement

To take on the mindset of a vegetarian or even a full out, dedicated vegan: Are you not alert to the harm you’re doing to your body and the environment? Are you not troubled by the pain you’re causing the animals? Why slay animals for food when it isn’t essential?

For the sole reason that man boasts an atrocious ego does he think it is ok that he can or ought to rise above his rank as an animal himself. He introduces mind-made constrictions called ethics and expects that this will miraculously alter the classification of nature. This is a highly asinine and pompous thought. It is precisely human beings’ unique capacity for reflection and self-restraint that compels us to pursue ethical values and think morally about our practices. To quote poet Robert Burns: The eagle from his cliffy brow/ Marking out his prey below/ In his breast no pity dwells/ Strong necessity compels/ But man to whom alone is given/ A ray direct from pitying heaven/ Glories in his heart humane/ And creatures for his pleasure slain. Animals that are carnivores in the wild are obligated to kill or starve – we, as civilized omnivores living in a highly-technological world, don’t need to kill for our food.

Leading a vegetarian lifestyle is also very beneficial to your own health in the long run. Not only are meatsf attening and have a tendency to clog up those much needed clear arteries, but they are also full of hormones, nitrates and pesticides, harmful, man-made toxins present in commercially raised animal products—a few factors definitely to be concerned about. Wrongful preparation of such treated foodstuff is also a too-often seen issue that frequently causes people sickness and disease.

That animal liberation is the rational next stride in the advancing stride of ethical development and a vegetarian lifestyle, is no longer the periphery proposal it was back at its beginnings in the 70’s. A rising powerful movement of ethicists, philosophers, law professors and activists are certain that the grand ethical fight of our generations will be for animals’ rights.

To date, the movement has won some of its greatest triumphs in Europe. Recently, Germany became the first nation to award animals a constitutional right: the words ''and animals'' were attached to a provision compelling the government to respect and care for the dignity of human beings. In England the farming of animals for fur was recently prohibited. The Swiss are modifying their laws to adjust the status of animals from ''things'' to ''beings.'' And in a few other European nations, female pigs can no longer be kept in crates and hens cannot be laid into ''battery cages''

Thirty-seven states have of late approved laws making some types of animal brutality a crime. Following protests by activists, McDonald's and Burger King required considerable advances in the means by which the U.S. meat industry slaughters animals. Agribusiness and the makeup and apparel industries are all fighting to soothe escalating public anxieties over animal wellbeing. A though animals are unfortunately still very much seen as mere objects in the eyes of American law, change is in the air.

You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and still come out completely dry. Most people do. ~Norman Juster

Clarence Darrow once remarked, “I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure.” Is having faith ignorant? Or are atheists and agnostics the true hypocrites, choosing to question gods simply based on the fact that there is not enough evidence to prove it?

True, many people believe in God merely because their teachers and parents have told them that he exists. And most likely the parents and teachers believe in God due to what their parents and teachers told them as children. Now this is not to say that we should always refuse to believe simply because of authority. The sharing of knowledge is an interactive social phenomenon and strongly depends on evidence. And if one were to believe solely based on what others have told them to believe, then yes, I suppose religion could be considered ignorance. It is up to us, however, as cogent beings to question all that we are told—to go out and test the theories which have been told; then and only then can we be sure that what we’ve been told is now something that we can firmly believe in.

When it comes to religion, though, it’s a bit more complicated. It’s not like we can go out and be introduced to the god that we are simply being told to have faith in.

I suppose agnostics are acceptable in the fact that they refuse to believe one way or the other--they simply accept that they do not now, and cannot know.

But when agnostics are denying that there is a not a god based on the fact that there is not enough evidence to prove it, how do they fight the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to disprove it either?

When it comes down to it, I guess it isn't necessarily what you personally believe, but that you are open to all views. To be a truly reasonable, persuasive critic of religion, one must have a vast knowledge of the topic at hand. And, ultimately, one must accept that "The utmost extent of man's knowledge, is to know that he knows nothing" (Joseph Addison)--we are only human and we will never have all the answers...and that's the one thing we can ever be fully sure of.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear". --Thomas Jefferson


Many people see agnosticism as the “gray area” or even a transition phase between theism and atheism. Well with so many varying definitions of what exactly each faith entails, it’s often very difficult to make the ultimate decision on which belief system is which. But with people labeling themselves as agnostic-atheists and atheist-agnostics, is it really necessary to have a single definitive title?

Agnosticism is often described as more of a concept than an actual religion. It’s a conviction associated with the existence or non-existence of God. Many atheists, however, have affixed a moral code, practices and the like to form a belief system with a lot of of the characteristics of a religion. Agnostics proclaim they do not know if there is a god, and therefore don’t believe and don’t not believe.

When compared to atheism, however, I think the two are completely different belief systems.
For one definition of atheism, E. Haldeman-Julius recommends that an atheist is one who fully believes that no gods exist saying:
“The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned and realistic view of life. The atheist therefore denies the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming."

In a second definition (the definition of atheism used by most Theists) an atheist is one who holds no belief in any gods, “Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. The term "Atheist" is derived from the Greek words "a" which means "without" and "Theos" which means "God." A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence.”

It may be true that many agnostics sway to one side or the other, becoming either atheists or theists, as their experiences grow and change their convictions on and perceptions of the world and the supernatural. But it is also true that many agnostics remain agnostics until their dying day.

I believe that this theory of agnosticism as a “gray area” is somewhat gray itself. Who decided on such final definitions? Religion, as I’ve previously mentioned, is a personal preference and, therefore, every person’s definition of it will vary, even if it be in a simple subtle manner. There may never be a single definitive definition of each religion. I believe that every individual has the personal right to decide if they wish to follow a single religion, to combine several religions to form a belief system, or to completely renounce the request to label oneself as anything.

Religion in Politics

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics know not what religion is."

-Mahatma Gandhi

As I’ve formerly stated in my blog, “Truth is analogous to culture, and therefore every culture will have varying worldviews on what is accurate.” It stands true that many Western civilizations are much more faith-based than out too-often materialized American culture. Is it right that we as a society have so extensively accepted pragmatic empiricism to be the ultimate means of democracy? Is it accurate to wholly close our eyes to religion in politics so as to simply avoid conflict?

The United States has a long-standing practice of separating church and state, yet in recent years, an even more potent tendency to subtly blend religion into politics. Throughout American history, the majority of the momentous political and social movements – from the 1865 abolition of slavery to the 1921 women's suffrage movement to civil rights throughout the middle of the 20th century to modern disputes over abortion and gay marriage – have adopted religious establishment for moral authority, motivating guidance and organizational strength.

So should there be a separation of church and state to allow for diversity of religion, or should there be an established common bond in this sense? As a read in a recent article, an August 2007 poll was taken by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press which revealed that the majority (69%) of Americans think that it is essential for a president to have firm religious principles. On the other hand, though, a considerable bulk of society (63%) believes that churches should not support candidates during voting campaigns. As Benjamin Whichcote once stated, "Among politicians the esteem of religion is profitable; the principles of it are troublesome."

Personally, I believe that both religious values and political stances are personal preferences, and should be treated separately as so. But with religion becoming more and more deeply woven into the fabric of our political system, it looks like the 2008 presidential campaign will pose more of a religious battle than any election ever before.

Faith

“A little philosophy inclineth Man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
-Francis Bacon

Throughout history, most philosophers have held some kind of religious beliefs. Is it true that humankind is dependent on empirical evidence for intuition/faith? Or does it actually stand accurate the other way around (we rely on intuition/faith for our practical convictions)?

As I’ve previously mentioned, it’s very tricky to trust in anything (or at least believe in anything firmly) without substantial tangible evidence. To have faith in a conviction wholeheartedly without any physical substantiation is a true test of one’s devotion; it often takes years of practice trekking through murky waters find one’s true self, and (when successful) results in wisdom beyond many people’s comprehension and which only few will know.

For individuals ground in faith, many are very infrequently seriously stirred by any of the endeavours to challenge their beliefs; but oftentimes they do find themselves re-examining the truths, placing their faith in abeyance so to speak, until the doubt is trounced. And then everything is fine and dandy until the next qualm arises.It’s true that this is very much more to faith than simple logical assessment of evidence (such as knowing/feeling a real connection with God), but it’s still a very testing obstacle to have a purely faith-based existence.

As a Christian myself, I believe it is normal for people to seesaw between uncertainty and faith. If there actually is this "true faith in God" then there is certainly not as much of a need to lay so much reliance on our rational capabilities.

Pluralism

“True pluralism...is always universal pluralism, (or integral-aperspectival): you start with the commonalities and deep structures that unite human beings--we all suffer, and triumph, laugh and cry, feel pleasure and pain, wonder and remorse; we all have the capacity to form images, symbols, concepts, rules; we all have 208 bones, two kidneys, and one heart…And then you add all the wonderful differences, surface structures, culturally constructed variants, and so on, that make various groups--and various individuals--all different, special, and unique. But if you start with the differences and the pluralism, and never make it to the universal, then you have only the aprespectival madness, ethnocentric revivals, regressive catastrophes.”

–Ken Wilbur from One Taste

In the philosophical realm, the idea of pluralism claims that ultimately there are countless sorts of essences, no consistently common set of truths.

In metaphysics, pluralism states that there is a multitude of fundamental materials that constitute the world. This metaphysical pluralist standpoint boasts that there is no singularity when it comes to conceptions and perceptions, no cohesive set of rules that define nature—only that there are an innumerable amount of basic divisions of ideas.

When taking a more epistemological stance, however, pluralism declares that there are a number of contradictory but still very accurate explanations of the cosmos. Since there is no sole correct method of breaking apart the universe into fully universal perceptions, there will be multiple equally select/limited, wholly precise descriptions of the world. Truth is analogous to culture, and therefore every culture will have varying worldviews on what is accurate. And since truth is also relative to success, and success is linked to the objectives on sets according to their interests, the right group of “truths” will be contingent to every individual’s diverse passions.

Although I disagree with Clark’s conspicuous tendency towards naturalism, I do agree with his belief that, when it comes to standards in a democratic society such as ours, it’s essential to maintain a commitment to empiricism. Through the implementation of the First Amendment, modern society has come to acknowledge a vast diversity of faiths, religions, and spiritualities. By upholding an empirical stance (at least publically), our culture evades inflexibilities in thought and logic, basing its practical (notice, not ethical) substance on fact alone. Empiricism is the intellectual foundation which sets the stage for democratic pluralism; with such a system, every individual, despite the obstacles presented by such extensively varying beliefs, can accept the idea of an “ultimate reality” and can thus successfully communicate (if not even relate) to others both sympathetically and peacefully in our “this-world” reality.