SMH

A CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTION

Clearly, the North End vegetarian stomping around town wearing her fur jacket wants to raise awareness about the unethical activity involved in eating meat but is there inconsistency here? To avoid self-contradiction the North End vegetarian must distinguish, on the one hand, between the animal originally wearing the fur jacket which (who?) was once alive but no longer is and, on the other, those un-named animals slaughtered for food. In other words, is there a conceptual distinction to be made here in order for the North End vegetarian to avoid self-contradiction? I believe there is.

The distinction rests on the grounds of biological necessity. While there are those who maintain that meat, given its protein content, is a dietary necessity and so justifies the slaughter of animals for food, there are others who maintain that personal adornment is an even deeper psychological necessity and so, in spite of the demise of the animal, justifies the wearing of fur. There can be little doubt that the North End vegetarian rightly subscribes to the second option and thereby she avoids self-contradiction.

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!