Response to Sarah

Sarah wonders if it is better for her to err on the side of caution when considering her dietary needs.

I think this is absolutely the best thing to do, especially if you believe that animals do indeed have the capacity to suffer, and it can be inferred from Sarah's blog that she does. I have a hard time understanding how people can admit to the suffering of animals and be abhorred by it and then go pick up a burger anyway. I guess this is partially because I do not feel all the social pressures from my friends and family to eat meat that several people in class say they deal with. If anything, when someone criticiszes my vegetarianism it makes my conviction stronger.

I think that we have seen too much evidence in this class not to AT LEAST question that consuming sentient animals is morally questionable, if not entirely wrong. So, then, I believe that if you find yourself questioning if you should consume animal flesh or not, particularly if you aren't completely swayed based on shaky scientific evidence, then the correct moral choice would be to err on the side of caution and make as many baby steps as you can possibly force yourself to take. I know, I know, it's hard, but I agree with what Todd said when he said that the choice to simply not go to McDonalds anymore or to choose pasta with sauce and no meat is not a particularly difficult choice and you may be saving a highly intelligent being from dying an unnecessary and painful death by erring on the side of caution.

My question is for those of you in the class taking baby steps: Do you think that you will ever actually be able to give up meat, to completely make that transition when you keep going back to it again and again in your baby step method?