One interesting criticism of vegetarianism is that vegetarians appear to want to return to a state of innocence, to an imagined golden age before humans killed animals for food or practised agriculture. In other words, vegetarians - and especially vegans and fruitarians - wish to return to a prelapsarian State of Grace, wish to reverse Adam and Eve's Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. This would appear to be an impossible dream and therefore not a viable ethical possibility. As Kant stated, "ought" implies "can", and if the ideal is impossible, then we cannot be ethically obligated to try to achieve it.
This criticism may be interesting, but I don't think it is sound. After all, a vegetarian lifestyle, while not perfect, is still better, that is, morally preferable, than a non-vegetarian one.
Another answer to this criticism comes from the poetry of William Blake, famous for its distinction between innocence and experience - embodied in his collection of poems entitled "Songs of Innocence" and "Songs of Experience". In his earlier poetry, Blake appeared to believe that innocence was irretrievably lost and existed in a dynamic tension with experience. Thus, every poem in "Songs of Innocence" has a counterpart in "Songs of Experience" and they have to be read with each other in mind.
However, later, it appears, Blake did come to believe in a type of return to innocence, not a simple return, but a more nuanced one, summed up in the slightly paradoxical phrase "organized innocence". I doubt that Blake would have applied this to vegetarianism, but I think his concept helpfully provides an answer to the "impossible return to innocence" criticism. Through their lifestyle choices, vegetarians are creating a state of organized innocence, one in which they rationally organize their lives (i.e. using experience) so that they can live more peacefully with the rest of nature (i.e. innocence). In a sense, they are planning for compassion to play a larger role in their lives, providing for what Hindus call "ahimsa".
This criticism may be interesting, but I don't think it is sound. After all, a vegetarian lifestyle, while not perfect, is still better, that is, morally preferable, than a non-vegetarian one.
Another answer to this criticism comes from the poetry of William Blake, famous for its distinction between innocence and experience - embodied in his collection of poems entitled "Songs of Innocence" and "Songs of Experience". In his earlier poetry, Blake appeared to believe that innocence was irretrievably lost and existed in a dynamic tension with experience. Thus, every poem in "Songs of Innocence" has a counterpart in "Songs of Experience" and they have to be read with each other in mind.
However, later, it appears, Blake did come to believe in a type of return to innocence, not a simple return, but a more nuanced one, summed up in the slightly paradoxical phrase "organized innocence". I doubt that Blake would have applied this to vegetarianism, but I think his concept helpfully provides an answer to the "impossible return to innocence" criticism. Through their lifestyle choices, vegetarians are creating a state of organized innocence, one in which they rationally organize their lives (i.e. using experience) so that they can live more peacefully with the rest of nature (i.e. innocence). In a sense, they are planning for compassion to play a larger role in their lives, providing for what Hindus call "ahimsa".