Are vegetarians morally superior? Is vegetarianism a form of perceived moral superiority? (ethical, activist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,025,008 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Do you think most vegetarians think they are more moral than the average meat-eater? I mean those that don't do it for health reasons. While I do have compassion for animals, and would boycott any place that really was excessively cruel to animals, I still think meat is part of the human diet. I get the feeling some vegetarians feel they can sleep better at night, and are more humane and compassionate to living beings than non-vegetarians. I think being a vegan is an even more extreme version of this - like how PETA condemns 'stealing' milk from cows or eggs from chickens. I don't want to generalize, but I've found a lot of vegetarians are very passionate about what they believe (nothing wrong with that) but can also be self-righteous, accusing meat-eaters of being murderers.etc.
I'm sure some are as you describe, and some are not. Same would go with any other person with any other strong attachment to a way of life (being religious, an environmentalist, an academic, a hunter, a Shriner, a political activist...)
Personally, I'm down to eating meat about once or so a week. If for some reason I ever become a full veggie, I'm sure that I would just practice it quietly and not push it onto other people. It's best to practice what you would preach, and not preach what should be practiced.
I am a PETA member - People Eating Tasty Animals. I am a Person for the Edible Treatment of Animals.
I don't consider this a moral issue. If you use the Bible as the standard for morality - it says that all foods are clean, and only recommends being vegetarian if ones eating meat causes a person to become weak in faith.
The vegetarians can do as they wish. They should lose the idea or moral superiority if it exists. The extremists who consider killing animals for food as murder are the ones to worry about.
The reality of taking ‘not eating meat’ to the extreme (where nobody ate meat) - is that we would condemn millions of animals to death. Our farmers would have to euthanize all of their livestock - some would just starve to death. Very few people would ever raise farm animals as pets. Hence; you would deprive millions of animals of the chance to live. I know that you can argue that the caged existence is not life - but is it better to have lived; than never to have lived? I guess that would be a subject for another thread?
By the way; you would not only kill off farm animals. Some farmers have dogs, cats and horses. If they were not farmers anymore; they might not have the animals we consider ‘pets’. You could also argue that some farmers would change to raising grains, fruit and vegetables - but; there are no guarantees.
It might come as a surprise to learn how many of the great personages of history - including those famous for their wit and learning - that were vegetarians. Jeremy Bentham, one of the great moralists of his time and whose utilitarian philosophy influenced the constitutions and laws of many countries in Europe and the Americas, lived on a diet of potatoes. From a moralistic perspective, it would be difficult to justify slaughtering wild horses for dog food, or raising domesticated livestock for human consumption. For better or for worse, ours has not been a history of good husbandry.
It might come as a surprise to learn how many of the great personages of history - including those famous for their wit and learning - that were vegetarians. Jeremy Bentham, one of the great moralists of his time and whose utilitarian philosophy influenced the constitutions and laws of many countries in Europe and the Americas, lived on a diet of potatoes. From a moralistic perspective, it would be difficult to justify slaughtering wild horses for dog food, or raising domesticated livestock for human consumption. For better or for worse, ours has not been a history of good husbandry.
True. Here is an example:
Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain.
—Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement)
I think some of them come across that way - others not as much. I find it similar to people's feelings about their religion. Some are happy to practice and believe as they see fit, some hold themselves as holier than the rest of us, and some feel the need to try to convince me my differing beliefs are wrong.
Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian, and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for the world of animals? Do you know that your Führer is an exemplary friend of animals, and even as a chancellor, he is not separated from the animals he has kept for years?...The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals, in particular vivisection, and has declared to terminate those conditions...thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals, from continuous and nameless torments and pain.
—Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement)
So, you think ethical vegetarians are generally like Hitler? The above is an example of something, but it only involves you.
Braunwyn....I'm thinking that that paragraph is being shown as an example of extreme irony ....and that the poster may be using that as an example to show how absolutely rediculous it is to believe you know the morals of a man based on whether he eats meat or not.
I think that to judge someone negatively because they eat meat, or wear leather, is not only presumptuous, and unfair.... it can only be done by a very close minded person with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
