Like the Oxbridge sex blogger, PMB lives at an Oxbridge college. Let's call that college "Ursa College," named for the Greek mythical figure Callisto, whom Hera turned into a bear out of jealousy, and Zeus cast into the sky as a constellation (along with her son, Arcas). Right. Ursa College.
Ursa college has voted to adopt a meat-free dinner policy on Fridays in the dining hall (meat is no longer served in hall on Friday evenings). The spirit of the policy is to make a small gesture toward carbon emissions reduction by abstaining in one meal per week from the consumption of meat. The policy also acknowledges that our current (global) rate of meat consumption is not sustainable in the long-term.
Because the policy has been met with vociferous opposition, boycotting of the dining hall, and general animosity, PMB will try to break things down for those still interested in the issue.
Currently, most of the discussion of and argument over meat-free Fridays is failing because discussants are unable to separate debates over the policy's intent from debates that arise from the policy as externalities. Consequently, while some are arguing about the importance of choice versus mandate or individual versus collective will in addressing environmental or consumption issues, others are having an entirely different argument over whether Ursa College provides adequate choices for vegans and vegetarians, and whether the backlash against the meat-free Friday policy is indicative of institutional marginalization (through extreme reactions, through limited meal choices) of persons with certain dietary restrictions. That the policy has prompted multiple arguments or discussions is not at all a problem; that these different arguments and discussions are going on over and across each other and often at the same time is a clarity problem, and produces distortion and communication breakdown.
PMB will start with the easier of the two questions, the question of whether Ursa College adequately meets the dietary needs of all of its members, and whether it ought to. Though the majority of Ursa members is omnivorous, a considerable minority is vegan or vegetarian. Ursa always serves at least one or two vegetarian options in hall (out of four to six total main course options), but has traditionally failed to serve vegan meals. Minorities of any sort don't inherently deserve extra or special attention, though it is often the case, in practice, that the dominance of the majority requires extra effort to ensure that minorities are treated democratically and their needs and interests are properly addressed. Mind you, democracy does not mean "majority rule," but "rule of the people." Minority people need to be accounted for, despite the marginalizing force of majority, in all manners of governance. Accordingly, as a democratically-minded academic institution, Ursa must be committed to doing what it can to meet the dietary needs of everyone at Ursa. In the near future it will be important for Ursa to continue in its quite successful tradition of being admirably fair, open, and responsive to the needs of its members, and in that vein to consider how to improve dining options for vegan and vegetarian members, regardless of the outcome of meat-free Fridays. As PMB understands, Ursa has already begun to think about possibilities for improvement, a testament to Ursa's culture of fair-mindedness, inclusion, and generosity.
Has the meat-free Fridays policy already begun to address the need for better options for vegan and vegetarian members? As PMB has noted, this was not the initial concern of the policy, though the policy has at least spurred some discussion about better vegan and vegetarian provisions. While the policy has not directly contributed much of practical value, and notably functions to restrict choice rather than to provide more choice, it has helped put the issue of vegan and vegetarian provisions on the radar.
As to the more difficult questions about the best ways for Ursa members to be environmentally conscious, PMB believes that Ursites would be better encouraged to make ethical choices about their consumption than forced to do so, even if for only one night of the week. One layer of this dispute is the old question about utilitarianism, whether ends justify means; a second layer is the consideration of, even given that ends justify means, whether the meat-free Fridays policy as a means actually best justifies its intended ends.
PMB is a harsh critic of utilitarian arguments and endeavors. First, the Best Possible Ends is something one can rarely quantify convincingly. Second, utilitarian arguments give short shrift to intentionality. Third, certain ends, even good ones, can be achieved through means that violate necessary and sustaining ethical principles.
1) If banning meat in hall on Fridays reduces carbon emissions and meat consumption in hall, but causes disaffected students to make a point of going out to restaurants to consume meat every Friday, how does one determine whether the best possible ends for the environment have been met?
2) If well-meaning omnivores intend to abstain from eating meat on Fridays, then find themselves robbed of that good-faith intentionality by being deprived of the choice of abstention by force or by mandate, haven't we discouraged the very kind of thinking that we aimed to instill?
3) If it's OK for omnivores to be deprived of choice in one instance each week with the aim of aiding the environment, does it not also ratify the tactic of choice deprivation used by other, less-savory groups to marginalize or to persecute their opposition? Should Ursa apply the same principles to its policymaking across the board, what would happen to our core values?
An ends-justify-means approach, whose instrument in this case is choice deprivation, fails because it undermines its own guiding sentiment of choosing to do the right thing by the environment. By effectively mandating a collective "choice," for what to eat in hall on Fridays, the meat-free Friday policy disempowers large groups of Ursites who would otherwise choose to forego meat meals on Fridays and other days in reverence to an ethical request, as it were, rather than a mandate. In most cases, right action happens through choice, and not through coercion.
In some cases, collective will must be imposed. For example, individuals will never decide of their own free will to charitably donate enough of their income to sustain a given society's poor or build that society's infrastructure. As a result we have taxes and government-based social provisions. The principle behind this is that a governing body is responsible foremost to the society (the people) who comprise it and give it legitimacy. Ursa operates in a similar way; the primary responsibility of its governing bodies are to its members and their needs. Abstracting global intentions beyond the needs of the locals must be done carefully, and not necessarily by mandate. In the case of Ursa, as PMB has suggested, many members will choose to concern themselves with global issues without being forced to do so. In many cases being forced to do so will counterintuitively turn the concerns of the globally minded back onto the local (as has happened at Ursa), creating the opposite orientation of the mandate's intent (here we find ourselves engaged in very localized politics of global concern).
Additionally and admittedly, moral and ethical action is less meaningful when it isn't chosen. In Theocratic Society X, for example, where stealing a piece of fruit gets you stoned to death, they have low crime rates. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that the citizens of Theocratic Society X are more moral than the citizens of societies with higher crime rates but less severe punishments. What does it mean, then, to chose to do what is right, versus being coerced into not doing what is wrong?
And, at the end of the day, it's at least questionable whether the means of limiting the choice of meat in hall on Fridays have optimally produced the desired ends. As PMB's comments have suggested thus far, the policy has largely engendered the opposite of its aims.
PMB's recommendation: encourage meat-free Fridays in hall, but allow the choice of meat nonetheless. If members opt against meat on Fridays, chefs will prepare less of it. Another option would be to negotiate, instead of a meat-free Friday, a sustainable meal Friday for which all food is purchased from local producers and the most sustainable options, meat or fish or otherwise, are chosen for the menus. And as a separate issue, Ursites should think together, in conjunction with governing bodies, about how to provide better for vegan and vegetarian members, and what such members would like to see on the menu. Perhaps a standing order of at least one or two vegan options per meal, with another vegetarian option, and two meat options? Perhaps the quality and nutritional value of vegan and vegetarian provisions in hall is also a consideration?
Game meat also tends to be more sustainable. Let us not consider bear.
