Pescatarianism as an 'ethical halfway house'?

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

Let me say at the start that I am an omnivore and that I fully respect people's choices as to their own dietary decisions (as long as they respect mine), but I am a bit baffled at some people's attitudes to pescatarianism.

Now, if you're pescatarian because you don't like beef, chicken, pork, lamb etc but do like fish then it makes perfect sense. However, there seems to be a widespread attitude amongst a not-insignificant number of people who pride themselves on their personal ethical choices that fish 'aren't really animals'.

When certain people who are vegetarians for ethical reasons find themselves in a foreign country/situation where eating vegetarian is very difficult, they often seem to settle on eating fish as a compromise - a 'halfway house' - in a way that they never would dream of with chicken or beef, however limited the alternative options.

We have a very dear friend who, whilst not 'evangelical' about it, has always described herself as, and prided herself on, being a vegetarian. We were shocked once when we went out for a meal and she ordered scampi. There were several vegetarian options, but she just 'fancied' the scampi. Fair enough. I expressed gentle surprise and she said "Oh, yes, I eat fish." I commented in a friendly way "Oh, I didn't know you were pescatarian." This made her very cross and she insisted "No, I am a VEGETARIAN!!" I left it there - her life, her choice - but I was somewhat perplexed.

Considering that it is perfectly possible to stun and kill a cow or sheep in a relatively humane way with little pain or advance knowledge/fear (obviously, still totally unacceptable to many); whereas it is impossible to catch and kill a fish without causing it trauma and drowning it.

As I say, it's entirely up to everybody to choose what they are willing to eat for whatever reason, but I just wonder why some people will pointedly not eat 'anything with a face' for ethical reasons - unless it's a fish; and then get offended (OK, it might just be my friend on this one) when you describe them using the neutral term that was specifically developed to distinguish them from vegetarians.

I realise that vegans mostly see ALL vegetarians as 'halfway-house fence-sitters' for not eating the remains of a slaughtered animal but for happily enjoying the products of their 'misery' - taking milk away from calves, eating eggs that leads to male chicks being thrown into a mincer as soon as they're born etc. - although, even then, how many vegans take a stand and actively refuse to buy produce originating from farms that use pesticides and thus cause the deaths of animals in order that humans can eat?

But I digress. No intention at all of insulting or criticising people for their own choices - I'm just interested to understand the rationale behind permanent or temporary pescatarianism amongst those who blanket-refuse to eat all other kinds of animals for ethical reasons.

I have a friend with mental health issues who chooses pescatarianism because during low points he doesn't eat well and it is easier if he eats dairy and fish to keep nourished and well.

However, he thinks it is less ethical than being a vegan but needs must. If you live in N America and eat Chanuk salmon, you're literally killing the Southern resident orcas who are starving to death.

I’m not entirely sure what the question is here. Your friend didn’t say eating fish was her ethical halfway house did she?

Though I appreciate she isn’t using the right terminology I suppose.

Eating fish is still damaging for the planet and they are being rapidly depleted, so I think the ‘not really animals’ argument is irrelevant if it’s about ethics.

Not judging though, I’m not a vegan, though we are cutting back on meat and dairy.

I eat meat but not fish or any seafood.

Is there a word for that?

It's better than nothing and at least the fish aren't kept and killed in horrible conditions. They just live a normal fishy life til they get caught.

There is also the argument about the use of land for livestock and methane from cows, which if you don't eat red meat applies.

My DH was a pesc but this has recently put him right off...

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fish-pain-human-animal-biology-lynne-sneddon-a9123626.html

I’m of the belief that every little helps and it’s better to start somewhere, even if it’s just giving up meat for one day a week.

I'm a pescatarian. Exactly as you describe, OP, I was a vegetarian for years but started to eat fish while living abroad.

At the time, it seemed like a reasonable compromise. I am entirely aware that it's logically flawed, but in my defence, I am not in the slightest bit sanctimonious or judgemental about what other people eat. I really couldn't care less.

I have thought about it over the years and wondered if I should start eating meat again, given that I'm no longer a vegetarian, but despite having loved it when I was younger, the thought of it really turns my stomach now. I've also thought about whether I should stop eating fish, but being vegetarian isn't without its moral inconsistencies either. I think the only real "ethical" choice is probably to be a vegan. I have a huge amount of respect for people who make that choice, but I'm not quite ready to make that level of sacrifice just yet.

As it happens, I only eat fish very rarely. I'm trying to cut down on dairy too. I know a lot of meat eaters who are eating less meat. We can all make more ethical choices on a day to day basis, even if we aren't prepared to go totally vegan.

Pescatarians who claim to be vegetarian are just a bit thick tbh. I do judge them!

I’m an omnivore attempting to reduce my meat consumption. Although I love fish I’ve always drawn the line at eating anything that gets dumped alive into a pot of boiling water. Can’t believe that is still allowed.

I was pescatarian for a while before going veggie and I agree with you! I don’t even know my reasoning behind it if I’m honest I ate fish for the health benefits I guess.

I now eat meat after being in hospital for while and succumbing to the meat 🥩

It's not rational anyway to think eating plants instead of animals is in some way more ethical - it just demonstrates the person's inability to empathise or relate to plants in the way they do animals, so claiming it's about ethics in my view makes them hypocrites.

The ethics of inhumane practices in animal husbandry is not the same as the supposed ethics of cutting out complete food groups from one's diet.

The former is an important issue that should concern us all. The latter is nonsense.

I'm vegan. Was veggie for 30 years - the non fish eating kind!

I see fish as meat. If somebody eats it that's their choice, but their ethical argument doesn't hold much weight. Neither does a fish eating 'vegetarian'.

Veganism is not without its hypocricies either.

I’m not entirely sure what the question is here. Your friend didn’t say eating fish was her ethical halfway house did she?

She would keep describing those of us who did eat meat as part of our diets erroneously as 'carnivores' whenever she saw us with some (quite good-naturedly) but she told us on a number of occasions that she didn't personally agree with eating animals for ethical reasons. She would make 'that' face when she saw somebody with a steak or some chicken, but fish and other sea-food apparently are not animals....

For many of us it’s about quality of life beforehand

@katalavenete

That's kind of my thinking too. Unless you exclusively eat already-fallen fruit or, interestingly, roadkill or other meat not deliberately killed by humans (such as chicken killed by a fox for sport or a bird or mouse caught by a cat but not eaten), then you have to deliberately take the life of another living being (or get another human to do it for you) so as to be able to eat and preserve your own life.

Your friend sounds tedious (sorry).

I certainly don't go for meals and behave like that or preach to anyone. Like I said, we'd all be hypocrites.

I don't get this need to comment on others' choices or to crow about ethics when none of us are without criticism!

at least the fish aren't kept and killed in horrible conditions. They just live a normal fishy life til they get caught.

For many of us it’s about quality of life beforehand

That's interesting and a very good point. The death might be grim, but at least the life has been normal and unrestricted right up until the point at which they are caught.

Of course, the fish would still be enjoying that fishy life for a lot longer had a predatory human not decided to drown and kill it, though....

Just to add, my original thoughts behind eating fish but no meat were that I could cope with the idea of catching and killing a fish, whereas I would really struggle to kill a mammal. I'm not suggesting that there is necessarily any logic to this, but it kind of made sense to me at the time.

When I first went veggie many years ago, I was mainly motivated by compassion for animals. These days, I think there are much bigger environmental concerns that need to be considered. We can all make changes. Even my 82yo father has decided to stop eating beef and lamb!

”Of course, the fish would still be enjoying that fishy life for a lot longer had a predatory human not decided to drown and kill it, though....”

I know what you are saying but there are restrictions on fishing and it’s nothing like a life in a battery farm.

....thinking about it, though, that still doesn't explain why vegetarians almost always refuse to eat any meat at all (except sometimes for fish, as covered above).

Clearly, there's a big difference between, say, battery chickens who are forced into tiny cages for their short, miserable lives and those who are allowed to roam free outside and in capacious barns, and fed tasty, nutritious feed, for a good few months or even years before their time has come and they're then taken away and slaughtered in an instant.

I guess I'm a pescatarian, I gave up eating meat a few years ago and dropped down to 'just' eating fish and seafood. My original intention was also to give that up at some point but I just haven't got round to it. I also eat dairy including parmesan so I can't make any ethical claims at all!

I think I could kill a fish though if I had to, whereas I definitely couldn't kill a bird or animal, and my vague logic for giving up meat in part sort of started from a viewpoint that if I couldn't kill it I shouldn't eat it.

If anyone asks I just say 'I don't eat meat but I do eat fish" so I'm not trying to label myself as anything, it's just a description of what they can feed me!

My sil in law says she’s a vegetarian, but eats fish and meat twice a year. No idea what to say about that 🤦🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

I guess the only real ethical choice would be fruitarinism 🤔

I know what you are saying but there are restrictions on fishing

Are they restrictions in how long the fish drown for before being put out of their misery (is that even a thing?) or merely restrictions in how many can be caught (i.e. kept) in a set period?

I don't know if the scare stories about quotas are true/half-true/lies, where it's suggested that, if too many fish are caught, those over the quota are thrown back in dead. Would just make it a little easier for the sharks, I suppose.

*fruitarianism.

I just can't be bothered getting worked up about other people's choices anymore.