RSS
To Eat Meat, Or Not To Eat Meat?
Randall Beach has a story in today's Register about a debate between Yalies and PETA over the great meat-eating question.
PETA, Yalies meet on meat
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
NEW HAVEN — Is it unethical to eat meat? Is it immoral? A roomful of Yalies who listened to a passionate debate Wednesday night appeared to be equally divided on the subject.
The opponents, who clashed on a stage at Linsly-Chittenden Hall in front of about 100 spectators, were Bruce Friedrich, policy vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and two members of the Yale Debate Association.
An organizer of the event cautioned the audience that it’s considered bad form to applaud speakers during such debates. Approval was to be shown instead by pounding hands on the small desks at which people were seated.
There was a great deal of pounding, both pro and con.
Friedrich began by stating that “living an examined life” challenges a person to make serious ethical decisions. He said if you care about global poverty, the environment and cruelty to animals, you should not eat meat.
He showed parts of a video, narrated by Alec Baldwin, showing chickens crammed into cages, stuck in their own excrement. “Eating chickens is eating misery,” Friedrich said. “You may not be slitting their throats but you’re paying somebody to do it for you.”
He added, “What it boils down to is a short-term pallet preference; we eat meat because we enjoy it. You weigh this against environmentalism, global poverty and cruelty to animals.”
Steven Kryger, a Yale senior, began by charging PETA adopts “silly” positions, such as opposing testing of animals and seeing-eye dogs. “I think we care enough about blind people that seeing-eye dogs are justified,” he said.
Kryger also asserted that animal testing has saved countless human lives through medical advances. As for animals such as chickens, Kryger said they “are incapable of abstract thought and lack self-awareness. This determines who deserves ethical considerations.”
“I love my bacon,” he said. “I love my steak. Should I replace it with tofu? That’d be really sad. Meat makes most of us really happy. We’re not evil or unethical. Human beings deserve more consideration.”
Grant May, also a Yale senior, said ending meat consumption would destroy local farming. He added that if farms were shut down and pigs, chickens and cows set free, “they would get run over by cars or eaten by birds.”
“They would not even exist,” he noted, “but for the fact that we have raised them.”
Friedrich said raising masses of animals under such conditions contributes to water pollution, water shortages and global warming. “I suggest we have a moral imperative to try to reverse that trend.”
Friedrich said if you agree setting a cat’s tail on fire is unethical, you should believe causing any animal to suffer is unethical.
Kryger replied, “I’m not sure a cat’s tail burns. But if it led to a medical advance that saved lives? In that case, I’d probably do it.”
Contact Randall Beach at 203-789-5766 or rbeach@newhavenregister.com.
PETA, Yalies meet on meat
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
NEW HAVEN — Is it unethical to eat meat? Is it immoral? A roomful of Yalies who listened to a passionate debate Wednesday night appeared to be equally divided on the subject.
The opponents, who clashed on a stage at Linsly-Chittenden Hall in front of about 100 spectators, were Bruce Friedrich, policy vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and two members of the Yale Debate Association.
An organizer of the event cautioned the audience that it’s considered bad form to applaud speakers during such debates. Approval was to be shown instead by pounding hands on the small desks at which people were seated.
There was a great deal of pounding, both pro and con.
Friedrich began by stating that “living an examined life” challenges a person to make serious ethical decisions. He said if you care about global poverty, the environment and cruelty to animals, you should not eat meat.
He showed parts of a video, narrated by Alec Baldwin, showing chickens crammed into cages, stuck in their own excrement. “Eating chickens is eating misery,” Friedrich said. “You may not be slitting their throats but you’re paying somebody to do it for you.”
He added, “What it boils down to is a short-term pallet preference; we eat meat because we enjoy it. You weigh this against environmentalism, global poverty and cruelty to animals.”
Steven Kryger, a Yale senior, began by charging PETA adopts “silly” positions, such as opposing testing of animals and seeing-eye dogs. “I think we care enough about blind people that seeing-eye dogs are justified,” he said.
Kryger also asserted that animal testing has saved countless human lives through medical advances. As for animals such as chickens, Kryger said they “are incapable of abstract thought and lack self-awareness. This determines who deserves ethical considerations.”
“I love my bacon,” he said. “I love my steak. Should I replace it with tofu? That’d be really sad. Meat makes most of us really happy. We’re not evil or unethical. Human beings deserve more consideration.”
Grant May, also a Yale senior, said ending meat consumption would destroy local farming. He added that if farms were shut down and pigs, chickens and cows set free, “they would get run over by cars or eaten by birds.”
“They would not even exist,” he noted, “but for the fact that we have raised them.”
Friedrich said raising masses of animals under such conditions contributes to water pollution, water shortages and global warming. “I suggest we have a moral imperative to try to reverse that trend.”
Friedrich said if you agree setting a cat’s tail on fire is unethical, you should believe causing any animal to suffer is unethical.
Kryger replied, “I’m not sure a cat’s tail burns. But if it led to a medical advance that saved lives? In that case, I’d probably do it.”
Contact Randall Beach at 203-789-5766 or rbeach@newhavenregister.com.
posted by Lauren Garrison at
1:25 PM
1 Comments:
Great post! Unfortunately this debate will probably go on ad infinitum. Personally, I agree so much with what PETA has to say on the issues - I just don't often agree with their methods of saying it. But perhaps if we had more debates like this, with institutions that often, by their very nature, are bastions of enlightenment, we would see some results. Thanks so much for writing about this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home