GoodEater.org

Until the last century, the majority of families in this country raised and processed all or part of their food. The majority of young adults are so far from the farm that they may be repulsed by bird and animal slaughter, but it is obviously a necessary step for anyone who wants to eat meat.
If you are involved in the whole process of raising, harvesting and preparing some the foods you eat, I feel you have a greater respect for the plants and animals that die so that you may be fed.
Webster was a handsome bird and his flesh, in your hands, produced a beautiful meal.

Another way to look at your question is to reverse it. Suppose that one is not disgusted by killing animals, but in fact takes pleasure in it? For many hunters, this is the case. Is pleasure a justifiable reason to kill? If it is, then sadism is legitimate. If sadism is legitimate, then surely it doesn't matter if we sadistically force others to do our killing for us in order to procure meat.

However, suppose you do not feel that pleasure is a justifiable reason to kill. If so, then how can the pleasure of eating meat be a justifiable reason for killing? Eating the meat occurs directly after and is wholly dependent upon the act of killing.

There's no need to hang out in a sewer to use a toilet because there's no moral ambiguity involved in taking a dump. By virtue of being a resident of the 21st century first world, you have earned the right to indoor plumbing. But do you have any right to eat things that waddle and quack? I'm not sure you do. I'll eat any duck that crosses my path, gleefully and beak-first, but I'm not a particularly good person. I know that about myself and therefore don't feel the need to launder my savagery by performing all Stations of the Duck. There's a penitent angle to the whole thing. Which doesn't invalidate it by any means, just saying. If it's okay to eat a duck, it's okay to eat a duck. The matter of who does the killin' would seem to be a matter of job, hobby, and personal preference. If that's your thing, fine, kill it yourself.

As for deriving pleasure from hunting: yes, it's barbaric. Just like eating ducks. I don' t hunt, and I used to think it was because I'm a half-a-fag liberal gun coward, but now I realize it's just because it's not my kind of hobby. But since I'll eat things that were born, raised, and killed to give me pleasure, I can't criticize anyone who likes to insinuate himself into the cycle a little further up.

As for splitting hairs about different kind of pleasure: in both cases you're talking about recreation that leaves one party amused and one party a dead duck. The whole point of living in a liberal society is that you're free to get your kicks any way you can so long as you don't fuck with anyone else along the way. The debate about the duck is, does it count as "anyone else"? Good question. But killing a duck so you can stuff it and mount it, killing a duck so you can eat it, ordering the pulled duck at Grace in Tribeca: don't matter to the duck.

Jonathan, if you think it's immoral to eat meat, why are you continuing to do it? Is a house and kitchen a prerequisite for being a vegetarian? What is immoral to you about eating meat? The actual loss of life? The "harm and pain"?

Excellent, intelligent piece Kenji. It is interesting to note that something that was common place not all that long ago is such an issue today. I think we have become experts at outsourcing death in our culture. We ship our animals to slaughter houses and our elderly to nursing homes and let someone else deal with their demise.

I don't feel bad about eating meat, it is kind of my duty as top dog on the food chain. I do feel bad at times from where my meat comes from and the cost it extracts (not just monetary) and I am trying to do something about that. I also don't feel one ounce of desire to slaughter something. Mainly because I am lazy and it would make me gag.

I killed some chickens when I was 12 years old, when I went out for a summer visit to some friends on a farm. The boys showed me how to do it - grab them around the neck, and snap it. Took me a few times, but it didn't bother me - boys at that age are like that sometimes! I also plucked and gutted them later, mainly so I could describe it in detail to my sister! I also killed and cleaned many fish in my life - always seemed a waste to throw that stuff out! That was way before I found that the Asians have ways of using fish guts - nothing goes to waste there!

When I was in college I belonged to a co-op, and many of the people were vegans, and trying to make everyone else feel guilty about killing animals to eat. I pointed out to them that plants are also living organisms, and even back then it had been proven that they have sensations, of some sort, when stems are cut, and that type of thing. Also, seeds are living things, waiting to sprout, given the ideal conditions, so it was like killing a fertilized egg. The only way to eat and not kill anything is to be a scavenger, and eat dead animals, leaves that fall off of plants, etc. Nobody ever had a good reply to this, and usually never looked at me again, let alone try to preach me!

Very thought provoking blog, Kenji. So many people take the origin of their food for granted which then leads to an appalling tendency to waste food. If people had to look their dinner in the eye before killing and eating it, maybe they would think twice about throwing out uneaten or uncooked parts. That being said, I would have a terrible time killing an animal (especially if I named it) despite my carnivorous predilections. I suppose if I was starving, it would be a different story. While I do not have moral objections to being lucky enough to be at the top of the food chain I guess killing any kind of animal would be hard for me.

Next time you are going to kill a bird, knock it unconscious first by hitting its head against something hard. This is more humane for the bird (it feels one sharp blow and nothing after that) and it's easier for you because the bird doesn't struggle when you do the deed. I have never done this with a duck, but I've done it with smaller birds (pheasant & quail), and it works well.

"As a vegetarian (and a Jew) I am offended by your comments. "

Look Kenji, I'm sure you were offended, as was I by your experiment and explanation. If you'd like to get specific, like I did, we can continue this discussion.

Cheers,
Preston

@Preston

We don't have the capacity here to edit comments that other users have left, only to delete them. But as I said in the thread on "Jewish Meat Mayhem" above, we will not delete any posts unless overt racism or any other bigotry precludes the possibility of a meaningful or rational exchange of thoughts.

Your post above appears exactly as it was written.

Hey guys,

Thank you for sharing your experience Kenji (The picture of the cute but bloody and dead face of the slaughtered animal is a bit too disgusting IMO).

I think preston is a bit harsh in his comments. And although I don t agree with him on many parts (The dexter analogy being kind of good since the killing was a bit messy but you ll get better) I totally agree with him on the fact that you CAN BE Hypocrite when you eat.

Basically, the issue of the way we live will not be resolved soon (competition, pollution, carnivore behaviour etc.) But we have the right to live that way as long yet a lot of moral improvements have been made in this civilization. So why ignoring it.

I personally will not take the life of an animal except if really have to. Society provides me with getting good fresh meat without getting my hands dirty. VERY GOOD. This is called civlization, this is called progress and it is part of history. I do not have to try and sleep on the floor or stop taking the train to see what life truly is about. And I don t walk around naked and expose all my dirty secrets.

I know where my meat comes from, I am a carnivore and I won t kill animals. I totally fit in my eco system.

However, I really dislike industrial process and cruelty in some american. I will support any initiative to increase and control quality. And I hope the way animals are treated before and during the killing process improves. My meals will taste even better.

I often explained to my wife that if you want to eat meat you have to accept that animals are killed to help you live. Moreover, if people were not eating beef you would not see that many beatiful healthy cows (i.e. India) in the country fields. I also have many hunter friends (although I do not really like it) and agree that there is beauty in the sport and it SOMETIMES helps regulation and participates in a natural process.

Yet, I really think that the less people kill animals and take pleasure in it the better. There is a dark and bestial part in aynone, mankind has been fighting it for a long time and for a reason. And I ll tell you that I d feel better sleeping at the place of my teacher than in the place of butcher (even if I like him). Simple common sense.

If you take a look at the crowd during a bullfight, I hope you will have another idea of how people perceive killing and like me you probably will think that itis better to keep that secret, controled and professional.

Cheers to all and Bon apetit

Preston,
Yes, cows as we know them would probably be extinct if humans weren't raising them to eat. You see, we've domesticated them to the point that they can't function on their own. Most breeds are prone to disease, they cannot protect themselves from predators, and they are just plain dumb. My grandfather raised cattle, so I've met these creatures. You literally had to bump them with the truck so you could throw the bales off the back of the truck to feed them or they would stand there, staring at you, wondering why they weren't being fed.

Wild breeds would probably survive if not hunted to extinction (i.e. buffalo). But domestic cattle, along with domestic poultry, are pretty much useless except to provide us with tasty bits. That's not to say they shouldn't be humanely raised and slaughtered, but unlike their wild counterparts, they would quickly disappear without human intervention.

To people who say that it is immoral to eat meat, I point to our dentition. Those teeth mean we are predators and predators eat prey. Can we exist without meat? Perhaps, but it isn't natural. I ask those who find killing animals immoral, do you think that lions and tigers should be executed because they kill? I've watched those nature shows and it doesn't look like a quick and painless death for the gazelle. Although we have evolved slightly bigger brains than other animals, we are still animals who generally function better with some meat-based protein in our diets.

I was a vegetarian for nearly 4 years. I became one not because I found killing animals repugnant but because I feel eating too much meat is a resource/environmental issue. So I went whole hog (umm...anti-whole-hog?) into vegetarianism. I found it quite difficult to remain healthy without meat protein. That's why now I eat meat, but try to eat only a modest amount.

Darcie Wrote - "I eat meat, but try to eat only a modest amount."

Modest? You only contribute to a "modest" amount of unnecessary death and suffering of our fellow animals? There is no such thing as modesty in this respect. There is no middle ground here as you suggest that is "modest."

Cheers,
Preston

Darcie Wrote "I respond only to say that since neither of us will change his/her mind, there's no point in arguing."

I can't really respect this response. We were engaged in a good in depth discussion regarding the central issue of Kenji's Blog Post. I asked you some serious, real, hard-hitting, curtain-pulling questions, all relating to quotes that you wrote. Dodging them is a peculiar tactic at this stage.

Cheers,
Preston

Aya asked: "And very closely related: Can it you make immoral food choices, as a vegetarian?"

Sure, just ask the vegans.

Cheers,
Preston

@Preston -
>"For a long time I’ve been of the opinion that anyone who is willing to >eat meat should be willing to take an animal’s life with their own hands"

>While this erases the hypocrisy angle, I think you are cementing yourself >as an admitted sociopath here.

>You refuse to moralize the "difficult dilemma you’re faced with when you >have to look into the eyes of your dinner" but you are somehow OK with >this? It sounds like you feel like you are being immoral, yet you still >killed the bird and continue to eat meat.

Calling Kenji a sociopath is only feasible in this context if he believes that killing an animal is inherently immoral, and yet has done it anyway, and it is not entirely clear that this is the case. Certainly, there are different aspects of being a carnivore in which one might face moral uncertainty; one might find it wrong to take the life of another sentient creature, one might find the method used to dispatch said creature wrong, or one might find the method in which said creature was raised wrong.

In this instance, despite the use of the word "moralize", the dilemma does not appear to have been the morality involved with the actual death, per se, of another animal, rather, he appears to have grappled emotionally with the dispatching of an animal with whom he'd formed a personal relationship. I suppose the answer to this is not "Maybe it's time to begin listening to your feelings, and stop eating meat," as you say, Preston, but rather that maybe Kenji should stop naming the ducks he intends to eat.

>This is much like the mentality the Nazi's adopted during their >extermination of the Jews. It's much easier to kill when you think of >your victim as on object rather than a living being.

By virtue of Godwin's Law, I think you lose, but I don't know that I necessarily disagree. You're right; looking at a pig and seeing it as a "wonderful, magical" collection of bacon, pork chops and ham - or in the case of the commercial pig farmer, money - is going to make it easier to kill it for the person who might have moral problems with killing a living being. But, I think the point of this exercise is to recognize that our food WAS once another living being. If we do not believe that there is anything inherently immoral about the actual killing of another creature for food purposes in and of itself, then there is ultimately great value to recognizing that the creature was, indeed, a living being, and as such that we ought to treat it well and dispatch it humanely. In other words, there is not necessarily anything wrong with the quick and efficient slaughter of a pig who's had a nice life on a nice farm in the Berkshires, but there might be a heck of a lot wrong with the miserable existence of a pig raised in some large factory where it's led a miserable existence up until the (sometimes horrifyingly protracted) moment of its death - disregarding the immense ecological impact of such processing.


>Kenji's 4th Statement: "What I can say is that the experience as a >whole was immensely satisfying."

>I seriously believe you should run this by a psychiatrist, you sound >criminally insane.

I'm pretty sure you can't have it both ways - if you're a sociopath, you know what you're doing is wrong yet do it anyway, but if you're criminally insane, you don't realize that what you're doing is wrong. I think you meant the former (or anti social personality disorder, or something).

>Jonathan wrote: "As a carnivore I admit that should be vegetarian >because I don’t think it is moral to take the life of another creature (No >matter what method was used). I have made up my mind couple of >years ago, that once I will have my own house and kitchen, I will be a >vegetarian."

>Simply pathetic. Just wow. Thank the lord that some day you will have a >kitchen and will be able to begin acting like the moral person you wish >you were. Man up and stop eating dead animals.

I agree. I also wonder how Jonathan's functioning as a carnivore. However, without knowing more about Jonathan, it's not fair to criticize him. I know plenty of people who would have been smacked and told they were silly had they declared to their moms that they wanted to be vegetarians growing up. Heck, my mom probably would have laughed at me, and it's not like at 15 years old I was buying my own groceries or anything.

>Mary write: "I don't feel bad about eating meat, it is kind of my duty as >top dog on the food chain."

There is no "food chain", and it has no "top" - nor, do we as humans have a "duty" to eat meat. I do not find this a valid justification for eating meat. That doesn't mean that Mary is wrong for eating meat, though.

What, specifically, about eating meat do meat eaters need to justify?

Preston,

You quoted me and responded as follows..

"Frank Wrote: "it never has really bothered me to harvest animals any more that to harvest a tomato"
Give me a break here, animals have no distinguishing qualities than vegetables in this respect? LOL"

I think the key that may separate us on this issue may lie in your initial response when you repeatedly used the word "lord" (lower case) It is my belief that my Lord gave me both tomatoes and animals to nourish me...so in that light, no...there are no distinguishing qualities between the two. I respect your right to choose not to eat anything that you do not wish to eat...for whatever reason. I fear that your caustic response may not be the best marketing approach for your cause.

BTW...some people think it's OK to put beans in real chili...& you think killing animals is horrible??

I am going to pick up and continue this thread in the most recent posting, where Webster finds his organs sizzling in hot butter. . .

Transferring the above post to the current thread under <a href=http://www.goodeater.org/2/post/2008/10/recipe-peking-by-way-of-bogot-part-1.html>RECIPE: Peking by way of Bogotá, Part 1</a>.

Cualquiera capaz de matar esta ave para comer sus entrañas, es, sin luagr a dudas... capaz de sodomisarla antes se sacrificarla.... En el mundo existen personas dedicadas a sacrificar animales, ellos son carniceros, tu, sin lugar a dudas no eres un gourmet, tu eres ANIBAL LECTER....EL CANIBAL.

I suppose that most of the people on this thread use computers, unless they somehow get their comments on this by osmosis. The first thought that jumped to my mind while reading Kenji's story is that his fundamental premise is wrong. The equivalent computer story would be: everyone who uses a computer should go to India and China and live out the life of the people there who assemble the chips and build the software, or just build their own computer from scratch by starting at a beach and collecting a lot of sand.

Of course, that's not a very reasonable thing to do, nor very practical. It is not practical for me to kill a cow, because I work for a software company. So someone else kills the cow and I get to eat it. They get amazingly designed software from me in exchange :)

I'm not trying to justify some of the cruel conditions under which animals are treated in the US, but I don't think I should *have* to kill a cow before I have my next steak.

@Jonnyjon

Don't think the analogy is completely accurate, as I think most people who use computers know what it's like to have a job, or can at least imagine what it's like to work in an assembly factory. In addition, I see no (or much less?) of a moral dilemma involved with melting sand into silicon chips as opposed to melting live duck into a confit. In one case, you're killing a living, breathing creature, in the other case you're killing... glass. Big difference.

(one of) The problem(s) with our food supply today is that meat factories and supermarkets do their best to hide the fact that there is a big difference between a cow and a pile of sand, or any other non-living natural difference, and for the most part, they succeed very well in doing it - for most people, meat is a commodity, not a dead animal. So I suppose, no, you don't have to kill your own animal, but it was just my way of trying to make help people realize that somewhere down the line, someone has to kill an animal, and an animal has to die, so it's our duty to:

a) provide the animal with a decent, comfortable life and quick death
b) make the most of it after it's dead.

I do agree with the concept, but I'm not sure I could eat something I had named or was pet; unless I was truly without other food options.

I hunt, but I only will hunt for food I will eat. I'm not a fan of venison, so I don't hunt deer.

I am forever amazed by meat eaters, who when faced with the reality of seeing or partaking in the killing of the aforementioned animal; are incapable - but yet still continue to eat meat.

I applaud your posting this, and especially posting the final image of the bloody, dead duck. Not because I take any pleasure in it, but because you don't let your readers off easy: You force them to come with you all the way through the death of the duck. There have been a number of posts and post-series around the food-blog world that purport to follow an animal from farm to plate, but every one I've read before now pulled its punch and magically skipped over the slaughter scene - neither describing it nor giving an image. (In several of them I'm pretty sure the writer wasn't present at the slaughter.) To me, that's cowardly, and it's a refusal to fully engage with what you have committed to, which is taking the life of an animal in a knowing and considered way; it cheapens and makes pointless what those other bloggers attempted to do. You didn't look away; you stayed engaged all the way through and you required your readers to stay engaged also. Bravo.