Southerland 1

Julia Southerland

ENGL-392

Prof. Fallon

10 March 2016

Can the Ethical Vegetarian Eat Seafood?

“Make sure you move quick, they’ll pinch you.” This is what my boyfriend Doug said as

he handed me sleek metal tongs and then used his own to dig into the wet, brown bag that wig-

gled and hissed on the counter. I stood there motionless as I watched each crab get snatched

around its mid section, its legs and claws wiggling trying desperately to free itself as Doug threw

them into a steamer pot made specifically for their demise. I stood there ashamed as blue hissing

crabs went in and scarlet lifeless crabs came out. “Ugh, I will not eat anything with a face, this is

just terrible,” a family member said, as she grabbed a plate of zucchini lasagna. “I’m fine with

crabs, I just won’t eat pork or beef,” Doug’s sister added as she went to take her place at the table

piled high with our victims.

I ate each crab slowly, not only still learning to pick them correctly, but because some-

thing about the entire situation I was in began to weigh on me. I knew deep down that steaming

alive is usually what happened to crabs or lobster I’ve eaten before, but seeing it happen defi-

nitely had a profound impact on my thoughts. It reminded of the essay Consider The Lobster

where American author David Foster Wallace attended the annual Maine Lobster Festival and

found himself pondering the same ethical dilemma as he watched over 100 lobsters get boiled

alive in the cooking tent. Wallace says, “…imagine a Nebraska Beef Festival at which part of

the festivities is watching trucks pull up and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and slaugh-

tered right there on the Worlds Largest Killing Floor…” (Wallace 642). I felt the full impact of

Southerland 2

his point watching those panicked crabs get shoved into the steamer pot and the lid pushed close.

I watched both vegetarians in the household eat their meals, one munching crabs while the other

a meat-free lasagna. In their minds, both of them were following a vegetarian diet. If so, I ask

can a vegetarian eat any living animal without defying the basic principle of vegetarianism?

The absence of meat from our diet’s began early in human history, with known vegetari-

ans like Pythagoras (580 BC) who felt that the slaughtering of animals “…brutalized the soul”

(Vegsoc). In early Asian cultures, vegetarians existed within religions like Hinduism and Bud-

dhism. It is possible that Pythagoras was influenced by the central compassionate themes within

Buddha’s teachings to abstain from all meat. However, the introduction of Christianity brought

the idea that humans were above all animals and temporarily lessened the strength of the vegetar-

ianism movement. There continued to be many vegetarians who spoke out against the eating of

meat, including famous artist and inventor Leonardo DaVinci who also fully abstained from eat-

ing meat himself. While philosopher Descartes attempted to prove that animals had no souls,

British philosopher John Locke fought back with arguments that, “…animals were intelligent

feeling creatures,” continuing to fight for the rights and lives of all animals (Vegsoc). The cre-

ation of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in 1980 began a Western move-

ment of ethical vegetarians who strongly advocate for all animal rights while famously protesting

any event, action, or business that goes against their values.

Current followers of religions like Buddhism and Hinduism continue their vegetarian

lifestyles as part of their cultural practice; however, many western cultures have picked up the

vegetarian lifestyle for various other reasons. For this research, I will define a vegetarian as,

“Someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits with, or with-

out, the use of dairy products and eggs. A vegetarian does not eat any meat, poultry, game, fish,

Southerland 3

shellfish or by-products of slaughter” (Vegsoc). The Vegetarian Society goes on to detail that

seafood includes mollusks and crustaceans as well, making sure to cover all living animals.

However, there are different types of vegetarians who only identify with parts of this definition.

For example, the term lacto-vegetarian describes someone who consumes dairy products

but not eggs, and an ovo-vegetarian is the opposite, someone who eats eggs but not dairy. Lacto-

ovo-vegetarians eat both eggs and dairy products, which the Vegetarian Society says is the most

common variation of the vegetarian diet. Vegan is a common term used in western culture to de-

fine a vegetarian who abstains from all animal by-products. Pescatarian’s are defined as some-

one who eats fish but otherwise follows a vegetarian diet, however the Vegetarian Society

strongly argues that a “pescatarian,” is not a “vegetarian” and that the distinction is vastly differ-

ent (Vegsoc). The central theme within the variations of vegetarianism revolve around the ab-

sence of animal meat, based on the desire to end animal slaughter, which coincides with ancient

beginnings of vegetarianism. In modern Western culture, a person who defines themselves as

vegetarian may not be making this decision based on ethical responsibility. In the 20th century,

there has been the addition of health vegetarians (H-vegetarians) and environmental vegetarians

(E-vegetarians) in many different cultures. It is clear that of the new variations arising, ethical

vegetarians remain the most strict about their diet and lifestyle.

Dr. Marie Mika, a Sociology P.hD researcher from Ohio State University whose vegetar-

ian publications discuss animal rights in human culture, states that, “Those who take animal

rights seriously are likely to correspondingly see that breeding and raising animals to slaughter

and eat is the ultimate violation of rights.” The ethical vegetarian has the belief that animals de-

serve the same rights as humans, meaning that the equivalent would be raising people for the

sole purpose of consumption, which is out of the question in all cultures. Published professor of

Southerland 4

Philosophy from The University of Idaho and respected animal rights activist Kathryn Paxton

George discusses Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights in her essay Should Feminists be Vegetar-

ians, and how it changed her view on animal slaughter. “Regan shows why Kant’s criterion of

rational agency fails as a necessary ground for having rights: many “marginal case” humans (in-

fants, retarded persons, the senile) lack rational agency, and yet we would surely agree that they

have rights” (George, 409). The level of cognition in a person does not devalue their existence,

and many vegetarian’s like Regan argue that this same logic should be applied to animals.

Though George mentions Regan’s novel changing her understanding of animal consump-

tion, she describes in a footnote that her family still eats “fish, milk, and cheese” (George 405).

This description of her diet has been widely criticized among ethical vegetarians, like animal

rights advocate and author Carol Adams, who argue that no vegetarian diet or lifestyle can in-

clude any dead body. Adams says she set to researching different vegetarian cook books first in

order to see if any would include fish, but was met with no animals in any of them. She says,

“…one offers a “Vegetarian Fish Sauce Substitute.” Clearly, they do not presume that fish is

vegetarian if they offer a vegetarian substitute” (Adams, 223). To add fish to a vegetarian diet as

an exception would consequently cause said vegetarian to lose that title altogether, creating the

pescatarian, which is separate from the ethical vegetarian and holds no obligations to animal

rights. The original vegetarian lifestyle and diet provides no exceptions for fish or other animals,

meaning that a person who allows fish into their diet but refers to his or herself as a vegetarian

without adding any variation is similar to an environmentalist driving a hummer.

Some people who defend the eating of fish argue that fish and seafood do not feel any

pain or do not feel the same level of pain that other animals feel. Philosopher from Kenyon Col-

lege and animal rights advocate Maximillian Elder has spent most of his professional career

Southerland 5

studying animal behavior and human animal interaction. He wrote a study in order to argue

against people who believe fish cannot or do not feel pain. Elder found in one study that a fish’s

response system to pain is similar to that of birds and animals, in relation to behavioral avoid-

ance to unpleasant experiences that one would assume could cause pain; however, whether or not

the fish is conscious enough to its pain is another part of the equation. Elder says that a study

done on African cichlids found, “…fish develop concepts and representations of the physical and

social features of their surroundings and use them to guide behavior” (Elder 18). With both of

these pieces of information one can see how a fish not only has the ability to feel pain, but is also

an animal that makes conscious decisions in its every day life.

One issue that Elder says is essential to understanding why some people believe fish do

not feel pain is because of different physiological characteristics in fish that are different from

humans. Elder says, “…fish seem to lack the ability to make facial expressions similar to mam-

malian expressions and have a very limited range of vocalizations that are not audible without

specialist equipment” (Elder 17). A cow or pig can scream or contort their face in a way that a

human can see as a pain reaction similar to their own, however fish and many sea animals remain

silent and expressionless when killed. This could explain why a pescatarian may believe its

wrong to kill cows and pigs, but can stomach the thought of killing a fish because they don’t

have a visual of the fish’s pain to cause an empathetic or guilty reaction.

More modern vegetarians are choosing their lifestyle because of recent theories that eat-

ing less meat or no meat is beneficial to ones health. Dr. Mika found in one study from 2002

that, “…issues concerning personal health are the original motivation for most vegetarians”

(Mika, 918). The increase in personal health motivation is common in modern Western cul-

tures, where society is becoming increasingly health conscious and aware of where our food

Southerland 6

comes from. Sociology researchers Nick Fox and Katie Ward discovered that the majority of

their test subjects for their vegetarianism study chose that lifestyle because of health reservations.

Many of their subjects recounted childhood’s filled with lust for food and no respect for their

body. One subject said, “I was overweight as a kid, I ate junk food, no veggies, and did not

drink water,” indicating that the memory of an unhealthy lifestyle coerced him into vegetarian-

ism to improve his health now.

Other h-vegetarians in the study reported they did so to “cut down on dairy for choles-

terol reasons” or “avoid high blood pressure and kidney stones” (Fox and Ward, 424). Subjects

who considered themselves ethical vegetarians stated that h-vegetarians were “boring” and “self-

ish,” stating that, “lots and lots of healthy people who eat meat and/or fish everyday of their lives

and they live till they’re 100” (Fox and Ward, 425). If one is concerned about their own health,

that separates them from the vegetarians who’s concerns exclusively deal with animal rights. An

h-vegetarian may find themselves cheating in the sense that they will include meat like fish or

chicken; however, because of their base reasonings for choosing vegetarianism that does not

mean they are ethically irresponsible. An h-vegetarian will most likely be referred to as a

pescatarian, because that separates them from the animal rights ethical stand point. My cousin

defines herself as a pescatarian because she genuinely feels better without most meat; however, I

have seen her “cheat” and eat turkey and pork at family gatherings.

As the population on Earth rises, it is evident that green house gases and other damaging

emissions will rise with it, causing exponential damage to our ozone and ecosystem as a whole.

There have been many studies which have exposed the dangers of animal farming, the most com-

mon being methane gas emission from beef. The one subject in Fox and Ward’s study that be-

came vegetarian for environmental reasons stated that “Non-organic farming of animals are

Southerland 7

breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses, which can spread to humans” (Fox

and Ward, 426). A study done by scientists Dr. Halden and Dr. Schwab of The Independent Pew

Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP) describes many reasons why one

should think environmentally when choosing their meat. Holden and Schwab stated that, “Of

most concern are the pollution of ground and surface water resources with nutrients,” meaning

the massive amount of waste produced from large scale animal farming damages both the land

and the water around it. The excess of nutrients that are fed to the animals can cause irreparable

damage to the ground and its ability to be used for farming, along with tainting water sources for

many people in that area. (Halden and Shwab, iii-iv)

All of these issues created by industrial animal farming are a current and dangerous threat

to our Earth’s ecosystem and the wellbeing of humanity. The resources we have to use on this

planet could be damaged or completely consumed causing irreparable changes made to our daily

life. Holden and Schwab state that the current model of farm animal production is “not sustain-

able” over time. They found that, “excessive nutrient loading and eutrophication of surface wa-

ters resulting in oxygen-depleted dead zones in both inland and marine surface waters, recurring

algal blooms, fish kills, and a decline in species populations and biodiversity” (Halden and

Schwab, 1). The nutrient damage is not just to ground water, but also seeps into our streams,

rivers, and other water systems. This nutrient damage depletes the oxygen within any water sys-

tem it effects, creating a domino effect of damage as algae begins to grow excessively, draining

more oxygen, which kills all the life within the water system including fish and other organisms.

The evident damage caused by animal production is vastly shared and discussed among those

who are environmentally conscious, creating a separate point of view in which one can choose

vegetarianism for a reason aside from animal rights or personal health.

Southerland 8

With all this information in mind, there are many arguments made as to why a person

should eat meat, raising issues relating to our physical ability and muscles acceptance of meat

protein, the need to eat meat, and the consumption of it. As stated in the historical summary of

vegetarianism, Christianity created a new wave of human supremacy over all living things. If

the lion can eat the zebra, then the same logic can be applied to humans eating animals beneath

them on the food chain as well. Food author and columnist Nathaniel Johnson discusses in his

article “Is There a Moral Case for Meat” many arguments for the consumption of meat, including

the question, “Is it morally wrong to feed a starving child in India an egg?” He follows up with,

“Often, the cheapest high-quality protein available to the poor comes from animals” (Johnson).

This questions raises the ethical response of whether or not a vegetarian would starve it pre-

sented with only eating meat. If I was presented with this, I would choose to feed myself or any-

one I love with any source of food possible if it was to insure their survival. With this mindset,

one can easily place the animal beneath their own needs for survival and accept the fact that their

body physically can and wants to eat meat if only to satiate the need to survive.

Many families in modern societies hunt themselves for their own sources of animal meat,

and many cultures consider this an important tradition. The National Shooting Sports Federation

produced an article detailing how a hunter can treat hunting partners, the animal, and the land

with respect. It states, “When skill and tireless determination result in the opportunity to shoot,

the ethical hunter never takes more game than can be used” (NSSF). This organization specifi-

cally states that hunting game should only be done if the animal can be “used,” in order to retain

the pride of their sport while understanding the ethical complexities around its foundation.

The Discovery Channel produces a show that follow the daily lives of the Brown family,

comprised of mother, father, fives boys, and two girls. This family lives completely in the wild

Southerland 9

of Alaska hundreds of miles from civilization, usually only accessible by boat. Their main

source of food comes from the animals they hunt themselves, which has become a ritualistic pat-

tern for them. Each animal killed is “thanked” by the hunters discretion, and then used entirely

out of respect and necessity. One of the boys, named Bear, is specifically skilled at hand-catch-

ing salmon in rivers. After he catches the fish, he instantly begins close fisted punching the fish

until it stops moving. Bear says he does this to prevent the fish from suffering, causing a quick

death for the fish just like any other land animal they kill with a gun. Many cultures around the

world adhere to these same types of traditions, where hunting and gathering their own food

sources is the only way they and their communities can eat.

In addition, hunted animals are taken from the wild where they live natural healthy lives

in their native habitats. Many people who become increasingly concerned with where their food

comes from can find it straight from the source here. However, there are many small farms

throughout the world, and finding local meat and animal by-products is another way to feel more

confident in where your meat comes from without hunting it yourself.

For the ethical vegetarian, animal rights and their well-being is foundational to their life-

style and what they eat. The consumption of a living being is not considered for an ethical vege-

tarian, and if it is, that person is directly defying the definition of their lifestyle. The h-vegetari-

ans and e-vegetarians choose that title because of their diet, not because of any moral principle.

For the basis of definition, it is important that a health or environmental vegetarian describes

themselves specifically as such, because the historical understanding of vegetarianism stems

from the ethical treatment of animals. However, with this research I’ve found it is possible to

consider yourself ethically conscious of animal welfare and still consume animal meat as part of

your diet.

Southerland 10

Johnson stated after his research that, “saying that it’s wrong and immoral to eat meat is

just too absolutist. I mean, even the Dalai Lama, who says vegetarianism is preferable, eats meat

twice a week” (Johnson). Within that may be our answer, because with all the information at

hand it seems that eating less meat is beneficial to ones health and the environment, but cutting

meat completely from ones diet isn't necessary. Eliza Barclay from NPR found that the average

American eats 102.5 pounds of meat per year (in 2007), and are the second highest country in

meat consumption after Luxembourg (Barclay). If Americans were to take on the Dalai Lama

diet, where they only consumed meat twice or so a week, this would drastically decrease the de-

mand for industrial farming. An even bigger decrease could be seen in if those same Americans

took their money for meat to local farms instead of large chain grocery stores that buy from in-

dustrial animal farming.

Right in the name of PETA we see “ethical treatment,” which becomes the center of this

discussion over animal consumption. Many ethical vegetarians see the slaughter and consump-

tion of an animal as the ultimate violation of rights; however, this argument has been seen as too

rigid, considering human’s history of consuming meat and benefiting from its nutritional value.

By allowing an animal to live in its natural habitat, either created by ethical farming or hunted in

the wild, a person can still abide by the ethical “treatment” of animals and still consume them.

People do not question when a predator takes down prey, and I feel it is no different for humans

who have created domesticated farm animals for consumption. Shoving large amounts of chick-

ens into tiny five foot square cages should be considered animal abuse, but allowing a chicken

for consumption to live free-range with natural food and company gives it the life it might never

have had.

Southerland 11

A person can consider themselves an “ethical omnivore” if they consider the treatment

and lifestyle of the animal consumed, and consciously eat less meat in an effort to prevent more

damage done to the ecosystem. The ethical vegetarian will not consider meat, fish, or any type

of living animal, into their diet because it will break the core belief of vegetarianism that eating

another being is wrong. The ethical omnivore, however, knows their place in the animal king-

dom and simply uses their advanced intelligence to improve their lifestyle. I do not necessarily

consider eating another living animal wrong, and believe that one can create an ethical bridge to

connect the empathy people have for animals and the desire to consume them for nutritional

value in order to abide by moral principles.

Southerland 12

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J.. “Comment on George's "should Feminists Be Vegetarians?"”. Signs 21.1

(1995): 221–225. Web…

Barclay, Eliza. "A Nation Of Meat Eaters: See How It All Adds Up." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 23

Mar. 2016. <http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualiz-

ing-a- nation-of-meat-eaters>.

BBC. iWonder. Ethics Guide: “Eating Animals.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/

eating_1.shtml. Web

Elder, Maximilian Padden. “The Fish Pain Debate: Broadening Humanity's Moral Horizon”.

Journal of Animal Ethics 4.2 (2014): 16–29. Web…

Fox, Nick, and Ward, Katie. "Health, Ethics and Environment: A Qualitative Study of Vegetar-

ian Motivations." Appetite 50.2-3 (2008): 422-29. Web.

George, Kathryn Paxton. “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?”. Signs 19.2 (1994): 405–434.

Web…

Halden, Rolf U., and Kellogg J. Schawb. "The Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal

Production." The Ethology and Ethics of Farm Animal Production (1978): n. pag. Web.

Johnson, Nathanael. “Is There a Moral Case For Meat?” Meat: What’s Smart, What’s Right, and

Whats Next. July 2015. http://grist.org/food/is-there-a-moral-case-for-meat/

Mika, Dr. Marie. “Framing the Issue: Religion, Secular Ethics and the Case of Animal Rights

Mobilization”. Social Forces 85.2 (2006): 915–941. Web…

The National Shooting Sports Foundation. “How To Be An Ethical Hunter.”

"NAVS | North American Vegetarian Society." NAVS | North American Vegetarian Society.

N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016.

Southerland 13

Schwartz, Richard H. "NAVS | North American Vegetarian Society." NAVS | North American

Vegetarian Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2016

Wallace, Foster David. “Consider The Lobster.” The Norton Reader: An Anthology of Non-

Fiction. p 635-646

"The World History of Vegetarianism." Blackbaud NetCommunity. The Vegetarian Society, n.d.

Web. 07 Mar. 2016. <https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=876>.

“What Is A Vegetarian?” Blackbaud NetCommunity. The Vegetarian Society, n.d. Web. 07 Mar.

2016. <https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=876>.