[Willy Gee]

When discussing the merits of vegetarianism, one point seems to be overlooked: being a vegetarian is not easy. I, like most vegetarians, at one time enjoyed eating meat, and it was very difficult to give it up. But I did, because I am concerned about the suffering of animals, and do not want to contribute to it.

On the other hand, a meat eater gives up nothing: he likes meat, and keeps eating it.

This distinction is important when analyzing the credibility of arguments for or against vegetarianism. I suspect that most people who reject vegetarianism nevertheless care about animal suffering, at least on some level, and would be horrified if they saw what went on in meat factories and the pain that the animals endure. Nevertheless, they enjoy eating meat and do not want to give it up. They, therefore, manufacture after-the-fact arguments which allow them to continue doing what they want to do and deceive themselves into believing that the animal suffering does not occur or is somehow justified.

In contrast, most vegetarians like the taste of flesh and wish they could continue eating it, but were able to change their eating habits because they believe that the arguments in favor of vegetarianism were compelling.

Which arguments are more likely to be credible: those that permit a person to continue engaging in a behavior which is satisfying to them but nevertheless causes other beings to suffer or those that convinced a person to cease doing something he or she otherwise enjoyed?

One other thing: all other things being equal, I am going to assume that da Vinci got it right and Ted Nugent got it wrong.