The Meat of It

Adherents of strictly vegetarian diets (at least the Hindus) are arguably amongst the most finicky people one can ever meet. It is not just that they refuse to eat meat, but they are also pretty adamant about other people refusing meat. It is not just that they subsist exclusively on vegetables but that they require that there be no signs of meat within a 2 mile-radius of where their food are made and where they dine. Maybe not 2 mile-radius. More like 4.

Some vegetarians, though most of them are fast becoming extinct, do not insist on other people's adopting a similar lifestyle on the grounds that a similar exhortation on the part of meat-eaters will not be very much appreciated: Why do you insist that I eat only vegies? I do not require you to eat any of my chicken. Indeed, why can't you pray to your God while I'll to mine own without either of us converting?

But for others, they find it is worth their time to impose on others a lifestyle they prefer. Some attach a sort of advocacy interest in that they do it in recognition of the latent rights of animal to life. After all, if they are giving up something gastronomically significant, it might as well be for the salvation of the "lesser" creatures. Others do it because this was how they were brought up and moralized the whole practice as an afterthought. In most cases, they do so without ever knowing what they are excluding.

Admittedly, there are dishes that challenge the whole morality of killing animals for sustenance. A roasted pig on a stick, which for the most part, still looked as it were before it died but crispy and golden brown. A steamed fish on a platter the eyes of which are glassily staring into nothingness. An array of death served on a table for a feast sounds morbid if not for the promise of a gastronomic delight.

However, as for any preferences, meat-eating or otherwise is grounded on a particular bias. It is therefore hard to moralize an eating preference in favor of adopting a particular one. Majority of Hindu vegetarians are strictly vegetarians because of a bias reinforced by habit not because they value the morality of it. They were fed nothing but beans, bread, root crops and vegetables as kids and are surrounded by people who do the same. Their environment likewise mirrors their preferences that even famously meaty fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's and Pizza Hut have robust vegetarian selections. Their food-markets are mostly free of any meat and sell copious supply of what vegetarians patronize.

Which explains why some of these strict vegetarians, when after being transplanted from India, start to eat meat. Because when exposed to an influence and environment that do not espouse vegetarianism, the bias and habit of eating pure vegetables are less and less reinforced the longer one stays transplanted. Some would claim that it was a matter of convenience that they gave up being pure vegetarians. They had a hard time finding sources of the usual dishes that they eat and decided to include those dishes that are more readily accessible, never mind if these new dishes contain meat. If in favor of convenience one gives up something, can morality be very much a factor in it?

Just as most of the strict Hindu vegetarians are born into their vegetarianism, so are these meat-eaters who were raised by generations and generations of meat-lovers and who have not known of another lifestyle. They were surrounded mostly by people whom they share a love of meat-eating with. The environment and influence they grew up in sustain this preference and reinforce this habit.

So if you, being a strict vegetarian, find it very hard to give up this lifestyle, why can't you understand that these meat-eaters will feel the same?