Trading vegetarianism for the day

A friend of mine, a vegetarian, longs for the days of eating delicious turkey on Thanksgiving. Thus, he is pursuing the following loophole in his vegetarianism: If he can convince me, a notorious consumer of meat, to adhere to a strict vegetarian diet for one day out of the year, then he will be free to stuff his fat little face with turkey all day long on Thanksgiving. He reasons that the net demand for meat will remain constant, so it is irrelevant which one of us actually consumes the meat.

Clearly this arrangement has no tangible benefit for me, but I think I'm going to do it because it amuses me. So, have any of the vegetarians in this forum ever entertained or heard of such an arrangement or have any comments otherwise?

[Lestat]

Kind of depends on WHY your friend is a vegetarian, doesn't it? If he just thinks it's a healtheir lifestyle (or doesn't like meat), then what difference does it make to your friend what you do?

If he has veganistic beliefs, it's a different story. In fact, I'd be shocked at his reasoning.

[hmkpoker]

If it were me, I'd agree, then just eat meat anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of depends on WHY your friend is a vegetarian, doesn't it? If he just thinks it's a healtheir lifestyle (or doesn't like meat), then what difference does it make to your friend what you do?

If he has veganistic beliefs, it's a different story. In fact, I'd be shocked at his reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed that is relevant. He is a vegetarian because he is an advocate for animal rights. I believe Peter Singer is the one that first convinced him of it. He operates under the following reasoning: By reducing the demand for meat, he is reducing the number of animals that will be raised for slaughter. Thus, as long as the sum of his actions result in the same total demand for meat as him simply not eating meat, then it is irrelevant who actually consumes the meat. I agree that this is probably a pretty unconventional view among vegetarians, but I think it is consistent.

[setzf]

As a vegetarian and mathematician I find your friends offer and reasoning to be quite illogical. If he really wanted to adhere to his own reasons for not eating meat then he should want more people not eating meat and therefore him eating meat for a day instead of you gains nothing yet compromises his integrity.
So he is right that it is irrelevant who acctually consumes the meat but if he really believed what he said he would want nobody (or a significantly small portion of people) to be eating meat period. Not that he should be preaching to meat eaters but that he should encourage vegetarianism.
Sounds like he's a vegetarian just because it makes him feel good about himself.

PS of all the meats he could "trade" for he wants to eat turkey? i dont get that either.

[Lestat]

Does he wear leather belts, or would he consume potato chips that were cooked using animal fat?

[Lestat]

I agree that he should ultimately want less meat consumed, but how (as a mathematician), can you say his reasoning here is illogical?

He could say to his friend, "Do me a favor and don't eat meat for day.". And then if he doesn't eat meat himself he'll have reduced the amount of meat eaten for that day by one person. The problem is...

His friend will probably reply, "Uh, I don't think so.". So if his friend will only agree to go a day without meat so that his friend can eat meat, it's zero sum! Everybody wins!

My personal philosophy is that I did not claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat a bunch of lettuce! Gimme meat!

I'm a vegetarian, and for the same reasons. I suppose the thinking is consistent, it's very strictly consequentialist though. I'm more or less a consequentialist myself, but there is still a bit of something in the act - I guess I'm just surprised that with him holding that view he isn't grossed out by eating meat that came into his possession via the agri-business machine he takes issue with.

Would he be able to persuade you to give up meat for a day regardless of what he did?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a vegetarian, and for the same reasons. I suppose the thinking is consistent, it's very strictly consequentialist though. I'm more or less a consequentialist myself, but there is still a bit of something in the act - I guess I'm just surprised that with him holding that view he isn't grossed out by eating meat that came into his possession via the agri-business machine he takes issue with.

Would he be able to persuade you to give up meat for a day regardless of what he did?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, and i think that's what is key. he's tried to convince me before to become a vegetarian to no avail. I think that some of his points have merit, but i'm already allergic to milk and eggs, so I'd basically have to be a vegan. And i don't feel strongly enough about his points to go through the hassle of having a diet that restricted.

So given that there's no way he could convince me to give up meat for a day otherwise, he can be sure that he wouldn't be passing up a chance to lessen the total meat demand even below the status quo.

I'm not sure how he would respond to the point of being grossed out by eating meat provided to him by the very business he is rallying against. However, I would speculate that he takes pride in his beliefs being based solely on logic. Thus, he might feel that letting that point influence his judgement would be succumbing to an irrelevant emotional factor.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine, a vegetarian, longs for the days of eating delicious turkey on Thanksgiving.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had that problem in the past, but not anymore. Just tell him to imagine what turkeys go through in death, as do other animals. Read a few books (Diet for a New America, etc). Personally, I look at a piece of meat (or turkey) and I just think of the dead animal and skinning it and the appeal is lost. Apparently I'm one of the few....