Eat Meat?

The fact that Michael Pollan is not a vegetarian, but became a vegetarian while seeking answers to questions about eating meat, gives him some credibility in my book, or at least allows me to show him respect. The way that he poses retorts to Peter Singer’s philosophical views throughout the chapter shows the complexities within the greater question of eating meat and animal rights, and allows the reader to see into his thought process, his initial responses, his justification, and the process of coming to his current beliefs. As meat eater I found myself justifying my own actions and responding in similar ways to Singer’s extreme statements, but while I have not had the opportunity (or rather have not sought it out) to peer into the life of a feedlot steer or an egg-producing chicken, Pollan was able to convey some of that information, helping me as a reader to begin my own process of assessing my omnivorous beliefs. This chapter is not just about eating meat, but is wrapped up in the idea of animal rights, which is wrapped up in worldviews and societal norms.

I found it particularly interesting the way that he felt when he became a vegetarian. He does not mention how much he misses the taste of meat, but addresses other issues that I would not have thought of. He says that it “alienates [him]… from a whole dimension of human experience,” and that there is something lost in traditions, culture, and even identity. He does not say that this is bad or regrettable but just points this out as something he feels within- a reaction I wouldn’t have expected. Throughout the chapter these philosophical tendencies come up, back and forth between one view and another, as Pollan visibly wrestles with his own opinions.

While he does end the article discussing his belief that eating meat is acceptable, as long as the animal lived and died respectfully, he does not give this as a blanket statement about moral code. “We certainly won’t philosophize our way to a single answer,” he makes clear. The biggest thing he calls for is transparency, and that people would not just look away and act out of indifference, that we would be informed eaters, and that our decisions would be based on such consideration and reason. This is a compelling argument, for vegetarians and omnivores alike. This is essentially what was illustrated in the King Corn video. American consumers know so little about the food that we eat. It’s depersonalized, but in reality it does matter and our decisions affect the environment, other people, the economy, market supply and demand, and so many other things that seem bigger than us. Pollan points to the choice between either looking away or becoming vegetarians, but he himself proves that there is a third option, and he presents evidence that Singer thinks as much too. The omnivore’s dilemma, is something that each person must confront on his or her own, but that should be based on a good look, even a look into the eyes of the animals we eat.