Who will I eat today?

My submission for a contest held by the New York Times, Calling All Carnivores, which answers the question "Why is it ethical to eat meat?"

Ethical questions rarely, if ever, are a matter of good actions versus bad actions. The more we try to objectively determine what is right and wrong, the more likely we are blinding ourselves to the very real suffering that our actions inflict upon the world around us, regardless of our intentions. We viciously reject the hard, cold fact that our good and virtuous actions also result in the suffering of others.  Every action is committed within a complex spectrum, as if we are all nodes in a fractal.  It is within these shades of grey that we attempt to determine what actions are permissible to the extent that they cause less suffering than all other possible actions.  It is a common belief that animals have a greater capacity for suffering than plants, and but I argue that this is not the case.

Science can inform our ethics in two modes: as paradigm-consistent or paradigm-shifting.  Great scientific progress is marked by discovery of physical properties and consciousnesses of which we were previously unaware, not by data that reaffirms old models.  It was in 1901 when Dr. Jagadish Chandra Bose presented his groundbreaking findings on the consciousness of plants, a study called “On Electric Response of Inorganic Substances.”  His invention, the crescograph, is able to measure plant response to stimuli, and by multiple experiments Dr. Bose was the first person to scientifically prove an empirical parallel between plant and animal tissue.  The Royal Society of England refused to publish his work.  Many more scientists since have collected paradigm-shifting data that suggests the perplexing (at least to Western minds) hypothesis that plants can feel, think, and have their own intelligent behavior.  It does not fit within our current understanding of consciousness to attribute these characteristics to flora, making it nearly impossible for many to accept the evidence that plants also have a Spirit.

The findings of Dr. Bose and others invested in understanding the unique consciousness of plants are nothing less than a revelation that Consciousness, or the Spirit, is the pervasive element in the universe.  Humans do not have a monopoly on it.  

It is not sound logic to determine a creature’s right to life based on their level of consciousness, nor on their capacity for suffering.  These arguments are premised on a form of human-centric bigotry where we make prejudiced claims on how much intelligence and self-awareness is necessary to call a creature “sentient” or “endowed with consciousness.”  As our society becomes more aware of the consciousness of plants, we will need a new model.  Reverence for all life is the new moral model that we should adopt.  

We must not continue to make the mistake of ignoring the right to life of any living thing.  So what does this mean for our appetites?  If science shows us that plants have consciousness, and thus can suffer, do we need to stop eating them?  No.  Eating animals is permissible only insofar as we revere them all as beings capable of suffering by virtue of their Spirit, and the same goes for plants.  It is not a coincidence that the more pain we inflict on our crops and livestock, the less healthy the food is.

Every being in the universe has just as much of a right to be here as we do.  Once we accept this, we will have made an indispensable step toward making ethical choices about how we treat the plants and animals we choose to ingest.