In the interest of full disclosure: I am not a vegetarian nor am I particularly good at frisbee but nonetheless, to me, “outdoorsyness” is not an oppressive practice of privilege.   Claiming it is merely reinforces overblown self-righteousness.

First, let’s agree that there are people in this world, people in Africa, Asia and right here in America who have a lot less than we Whitman students do. Less food, less money, less education, fewer people who deeply care about them and therefore less opportunity.
It’s hard to eat locally grown tomatoes and onions when you live in an inner city neighborhood full of Burger Kings and you work two jobs with no time to cook. It’s also hard to put solar panels on your roof when you don’t live under your own and not everyone can go skiing every weekend.

Now, what’s wrong with the fact that certain lifestyles and activities are not universally accessible?   Eating meat is not the moral equivalent of being racist.   The same is true for outdoorsy sports; there’s not a moral norm of playing frisbee and all those who don’t are somehow denigrated. Privilege isn’t just a relation of inequality but an inequality that suggests hierarchy; vegetarianism and outdoor sports do not and should not suggest the same. There are ethical arguments yes, for vegetarianism. Consider the following:

a) Causing pain to others is wrong
b) Animals feel lots of pain when they’re slaughtered for our consumption
c) Eating meat supports the meat processing industry by financially propping up their business
d) So, eating meat props up processes that cause animals a lot of pain
e) Therefore, it’s wrong to eat meat

Moreover, vegetables in general cost less than meat and there are multiple efforts across the country to start vegetable gardens on rooftops in inner cities. Additionally, the outdoors aren’t located on majestic postcards but can be enjoyed just by cleaning up an old park. Hyperbolic claims of cultural imperialism and oppression are easy to make but even easier to exaggerate.

So how do we reconcile the ethical argument for vegetarianism with cultures and lifestyles that have historically eaten meat? Eating meat is a sign of status and wealth in parts of the developing world and central to the livelihoods of many cultures but is cultural history a sufficient justification for a culture’s own practices? Or more ordinarily, is a palette for rib-eye a moral defect I’ve inherited?

There aren’t easy answers to these questions, but hubris on the side of vegetarians or on the side of us omnivores does nothing but give us all an inflated sense of arrogance. Endlessly celebrating our own lifestyles and our oh-so-cool contrarian views merely reproduces a stifling conformity that lets our beliefs close our minds. That’s an example of privilege worth critiquing.