The Double Standard of Vegan Ethics
It's obvious, really from an objective point of view, that to accept one species' natural tendency to brutally slaughter another for their own consumption or even entertainment (i.e. cats), yet portray humanity's own natural tendency to do likewise as being the lowest form of barbarism, constitutes a double standard!
Likewise, the counterargument from the vegan camp would be that owning a pet such as a cat or a dog, yet consuming animal products like beef, lamb and milk equates to a double standard as well. Yet it doesn't, because we, like most carnivores, are to various extents selective about our prey, for varying reasons. Orcas, for instance, will prey on seals, birds, and even sharks, but seldom attack humans, particularly in the wild. In fact, it's well documented that bottlenose dolphins in particular will playfully interact with humans as if they were one of their own.
Looking from an objectively balanced perspective, the need to protect animals from suffering, despite its nobility, is ultimately a futile cause in the great natural scheme of things.
The underlying premise of my argument, therefore, is that idealism and ethics must inevitably give way to realism. And that is why I shall continue to eat meat, while at the same time respecting your right not to.Editor's Note:
I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that humans have a natural tendency to "brutally slaughter" other creatures. Most (close to all) humans cannot stand to see other beings tortured, and often the only way they can stand watching it is after a long period of desensitization to the act. There is a book called Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry
that I think might interest you, as it documents hundreds (if not thousands) of testimonials from slaughterhouse workers who almost all admit it's an awful thing to watch and take part in.
The other thing to consider is that humans have the option to make other choices. We simply do not need to have any part of slaughter in order to eat and be healthy. Additionally, we do not live in the "great natural scheme of things" and our food system is as far removed from natural as possible. This is especially true in the United States, but I am fairly certain the same situation is arising in NZ as well as much of the rest of the world. The animals raised for food could not survive on their own, and the entire food industry is destroying our people, our earth, our water systems, our air, and defenseless animals. That, to me, is not realism.
Thanks for letting us know your opinion.