[MD] vegetarianism

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ok question:

Eating vegitables is more moral that eating meat, but  both actions a moral 
as both involve higher consuming lower order patterns,  so is it imoral to 
decide to take an action that chooses a less moral act  over a more moral act 
when neither act is actually *bad? (*lower level  consumes higher level)
If we answer that it is, then we could be off on a  route to puritanism and 
all sorts of value judgements have to be made,  concerning the choices 
between competing "top answers" where even picking a  good path will be 
essentially wrong as it was not the very best one that was  available???

Hi There nameless one,
Pirsig continues:
'But the moral force of this injunction is not so great because the levels  of
evolution are closer together than the doctor's patient and the  germ.'
 
'Because a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality is not tied to substance  it
is free to consider moral issues at higher evolutionary levels than  germs
and fruits and vegetables.  At these higher levels the issues  become more
interesting.'
 
The issue of meat eating is important and has ramifications for the  starving 
millions of this world. I don't want to even try and play it  down.
Meat has become an aspect of industrial society - Meat is an industry of  
production and consumption. Basically it's a pattern of imitated behaviour  
rather than biological imperative - our culture promotes meat from the  cradle.
Very often the decisions we think we make are loaded by the static  
construction of our culture and meat has become one static element within  it.
I think the MoQ has got it right on this issue, but static patterns  are not 
called so for nowt.
Love,
Mark