MetaKnigel If the Rule is Broken–Break It.

Vegetarians: Don’t Be Bad Guests

The is a followup from my previous post: Confessions of a Vegan Meat-Eater

Written by Knigel Holmes

Eat what the locals eat. Eat the dog, pig, and cow. Eat the whale, seal, and urchin. Eat the scorpion, cockroach and larvae. Shun cultural arrogance, and instead of confining freedom to strict vegetarianism or religious food restrictions, open up to other cultures. Religion and moral righteousness are not valid excuses for not challenging one’s own cultural norms. Sharing food and participating in food culture is not simply a matter of politeness. No, breaking bread is a highly moral act because it brings cultures closer together. Rejecting food and generosity rejects the culture and is, therefore, a competing immoral act. The choice of vegetarianism, for example, is not inherently “right” or “wrong”, it is, however, mainly a decision from within more food secure nations and not ethically superior to the choice of an adaptive diet. Instead of alienating hosts, take part in local food culture, and consider temporarily relaxing dietary preferences.

Contrary to claims of moral superiority, the vegetarian diet is not inherently “good”. As far as we know, the diet is merely a preference among other ethical choices. Without evidence of a deity, we cannot claim to have any absolute wrong or right (Sinnott-Armstrong). Thus, our morality is human-centric. Beliefs of “right” and “wrong” stem from events that affect us as humans. For example, if given the choice between a fresh, ripe apple and a rotten, decomposing apple most would choose the fresh apple. Given that we have no evidence of an intrinsic morality, we can only design our own extrinsic morals. Since there is no certainty of one path of ethics, we can think of ethics in terms of moral landscapes with different peaks and drops. The moral landscape, says author Sam Harris, is:

A space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks correspond to the heights of potential well-being and whose valleys represent the deepest possible suffering. Different ways of thinking and behaving—different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc.—will translate into movements across this landscape and, therefore, into different degrees of human flourishing. (Harris)

If vegetarianism is at a high peak of the moral landscape, so too is compromising between cultures. Each is moral on different landscapes. Moral relativism suggests that morals are relative to traditions, convictions, or practices (Gowans), yet these truth statements are so far epistemologically unknown. Normative relativism suggests an absolute cultural tolerance; however, instead of relying on this broken logic, we can instead criticise morals while negotiating higher ethical plateaus. Being able to judge other cultures with absolute certainty is so far impossible, yet we can make compromises. Uncompromising people ineffectively change those parts of another culture they think are ethically inferior. We do not have to eat something given to us, yet it is arguably a higher ethical choice to consider it.

Outsiders are less able to understand a foreign system. For example, Michael Ohlsson, once a vegan, now a connoisseur of strange meats, says that he appreciates “how the Chinese are generally closer to the source -- you pick out your fish from the restaurant tank and eat it off the bone. Most Americans freak out about this, uncomfortable with even thinking about where a slab of meat comes from” (Zimmern). Looking in on another culture from the outside gives only a superficial view that neglects understanding the reasons for how and why it became that way. Too often people assume that their own way of doing things is superior. Saying a culture is wrong before understanding why it does what it does leads to hasty generalizations, prejudice, and other logical fallacies.

Ethnocentricity and moral relativism both complicate balancing personal ethics with tolerating different cultures. Anthropophagy, for example, is perhaps the most difficult ethical dilemma between food and culture. The consensus seems to agree that humans eating humans is likely on a lower point in the moral landscape. Cannibalism is taboo in most cultures; however, not all. It is still impossible to say that anthropophagy is inherently wrong, so we must use reason to decide if the context is appropriate to join in on a human flesh meal. For example, the Fore Tribe of Papua New Guinea, until the 1950s, ate their dead relatives (Jamieson). Accepting a primate meal in this situation may still be ethically sound compared to participating in a cannibalistic culture that kills and eats its enemies as an intimidation tactic (Gerson). While it would be easier to have absolute morals, we instead have to use our judgment navigating these ethical situations. When in Rome, we do not have to do what the Romans do; however, it seems ethically superior to compromise between the culture and personal morality.

Furthermore, the choice of being vegetarian is mostly a dilemma of those countries that have enough food security reject food. While some less developed countries do sustain vegetarian diets they do depend on available food while less able to decide between diets. People eat what they can get when they have fewer opportunities. Author, traveller, and chef, Anthony Bourdain, opines that veganism “is a first-world phenomenon, completely self-indulgent” (Sheff). Veganism, in some situations, does seem self-indulgent, because while some less developed countries do have vegetarian populations, many people are vegetarian since they lack a choice. Similarly, pondering vegetarianism while in Africa, Ryan Brown explains:

In the U.S. I was vegetarian because I could be, because food was an on-demand commodity in my life and I lived with the knowledge that for the most part I could eat what I wanted when I wanted — and stop eating whatever I decided I didn’t want. But in that gaudy and out-of-place Thai restaurant in Dakar, I remembered that for most people, that particular luxury does not exist.

Vegetarianism itself is not a problem of the developed world, but the choice to be vegetarian is. North Americans, for example, come from an economy that supports a variety of diets, yet other countries are less food secure. To many deprived countries, meat is a luxury. Brown, goes on to say that “being vegetarian felt less ridiculous when it came weighted with the knowledge of exactly what it was: a choice. Vegetarianism wasn’t a matter of absolutely or an absolutely not. It is just the way I preferred to eat”. Vegetarianism is a preference that the wealthier have the privilege of choosing.

Luxury of the developed world is an argument against the political and economic system, not vegetarianism; however, when participating in a culture that does face hardship, it is a sign of friendship to join in with their culture. “My appetite,” says Brown, “could convey what my mouth constantly stumbled over: how grateful I was for the people who had welcomed me, for the kindness with which they had treated me and the magnanimous generosity they were endlessly displaying. And so I ate”. People from more economically developed countries have a choice to refuse eating food that they would rather not eat, but other countries do not. Refusing to eat the local foods shows an ungrateful arrogance. It is arrogance because it is looks down on foods that other people eat. Vegetarians, says Bourdain, “make for bad travelers and bad guests”, moreover:

The notion that before you even set out to go to Thailand, you say, “I’m not interested,” or you’re unwilling to try things that people take so personally and are so proud of and so generous with, I don’t understand that, and I think it’s rude. You’re at Grandma’s house, you eat what Grandma serves you (Sheff).

Not only do we close ourselves off from experience, we make value judgments when we suggest that something is not a food. When we say that something is “wrong” to eat, we are saying that those who eat it are also behaving wrongly. Omnivores who look down on other people for eating insects, dogs, frogs, or any other food are hypocritical and arrogant. While vegetarians seem to have a more coherent diet, this frowning down on what others consider to be food can be construed as haughty. If privilege gives a choice of refusing sustenance, it is a sign of arrogance when not letting go of that privilege while joining in on another culture. Brown mentions that he:

realized there was another ethic of eating that I was ignoring, one that said, “When people open their house and table and prepare food for you, you eat it. No quibbles.” How many times as a vegetarian, I thought, had I refused the food that was offered to me, out of generosity and hospitality, because I didn’t eat meat? I was suddenly and powerfully ashamed of this fact.

It is insulting to maintain privilege when people offer their own culture. If that society eats rats, and rats are disgusting to one’s own social norms, it seems unethical not to challenge those assumptions.

An adaptive diet helps solidarity because food is essential to culture and ethics. Merriam-Webster defines “culture” as “the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations”. According to this definition, cultural food rituals are some of the best examples of culture. Food culture is an art while also loaded with customs and beliefs. Of culture, food is perhaps one of the best for transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations. The argument that food is not culture is absurd. Ohlsson says that:

Food is the only true universal language. Whether you're uneducated, deaf or blind, and regardless of social class, you still appreciate food. I believe most introductions to foreign cultures is through food. And I think most common ground is found this way. Food is a necessity, but in every culture, there are dishes that are such an integral part of culture, of expression, of identity, they're elevated to an art form. (Zimmern)

Food is a major part of the human experience of sharing with others. Refusing to join in another culture’s traditions is certainly one of the lower points on the moral landscape. “I tried to get the dishes made without meat,” says Ohlsson, “but this humiliated my host and bewildered the restaurant staff who'd prepared dishes that are centuries old. I left feeling like a fool” (Zimmern). While culture does change, we must also have respect and understanding for culture. We all take part in transforming culture; however, some abuse unbalanced influence. “If someone’s serving you something,” says Bourdain, “and they’re proud and they’ve worked to prepare it, to decline would be a worse offense” (Sheff). To reject meat or other food because of one’s own taboo is to reject another’s culture. If someone asks us to wear their traditional clothing, take off our shoes going into their house, or speak their language it is an ethical duty to at least think about observing these traditions.

In the end, putting personal convictions aside while exploring other countries is an ethical choice. We have no certain morality, yet we can make compromises of ethics. When we are travelling, especially to less privileged countries, we have more responsibility to put our convictions on hold so that we can increase solidarity. Those coming from economically wealthier nations ought to humble themselves and not assume ethical superiority. While we rely on diametric thinking to simplify complexities, inflexible dogma lowers our ethics to lower depths. By adjusting ethical priorities, we can adapt to new situations. Instead of lecturing people in their own homes, we should save stubbornness for when we need it the most. In the end, you can maintain a diet that you believe more ethical while also relaxing it while travelling. Have your principles, but be a good guest.

 

 

Works Cited

Brown, Ryan. “Africa brought out the meat-eater in me” Salon.com. Salon. 24 Aug. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.salon.com/2010/08/23/africa_meat_eating/singleton/

“Culture”. merriam-webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

Gerson, Michael. “Africa’s Messiah of Horor” washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503430.html

Gowans, Chris, "Moral Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/moral-relativism

Harris, Sam. The moral landscape: how science can determine human values. New York: Free Press, 2010. Print.

Jamieson, Alastair. “Brain-eating tribe could help find treatment for mad cow disease” Telegraph.com. The Telegraph. 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/papuanewguinea/6603676/Brain-eating-tribe-could-help-find-treatment-for-mad-cow-disease.html

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, "Moral Skepticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/skepticism-moral

Sheff, David. “Playboy Interview: Anthony Bourdain” Playboy.com. Playboy. 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.playboy.com/magazine/anthony-bourdain-interview

Zimmern, Andrew. “Michael Ohlsson of Weird Meat” andrewzimmern.com. Andrew Zimmern. 23 Oct. 2008. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. http://www.andrewzimmern.com/node/1065