The (un)Ethics of Veganism (moral, choice, communion, moral)

[mostly harmless]

Originally Posted by lilithu

That plays both ways. My guess is that you think the person being quoted is "stridently" criticising veganism/defending meat-eating because she feels guilty about it. Whereas I think she's responding to the the stridency of the many vegetarians whom she's met, because I've met many.

My experience is that those vegetarians that I know who were born and raised into it (for example, Hindus) are far less self-righteous and proselytizing about being vegetarian than those who have made the ethical choice somewhere along the line. I notice the same thing amongst people who have recently quit smoking versus those who have never smoked. I often suspect that in both these cases their stridency comes from a need to affirm their choice by convincing others of the correctness of that choice.

I think I agree with you here...
I have also noticed that people who decided to go vegan/vegetarian seem to have some personal thing about getting others to 'convert' ..whereas, people who are vegan/vegetarian for religious reasons or were raised that way don't feel the same need....(same with the smoking thing too)

I think there are certain types of people who, when they make some major life changing decisions, feel the need to try and get everyone else to do the same...like the more people they get to see things their way the more they feel like they made the right choice and 'gee, aren't ya glad you did too?'..

[Revasser]

Personally, I would like know why, if someone didn't think their morals were "superior" they would hold them as their morals in the first place. Anyone who holds any morals at all holds those morals precisely because they think they are superior. This goes for everything, not just whether or not to eat meat. And as Booko said earlier, what is the use in having principles if you aren't going to act on them?

Is someone who doesn't steal being smug and morally superior if they consider themselves more moral than a thief? Is someone who makes a point to only fish in areas where their fishing is sustainable being smug and morally superior because they say fishing in an area where fish stocks are depleted is wrong?

And if the thief or the other fisher doesn't agree at all and are confident in their decision, why would they get upset if someone disagreed? What's the big deal if they act smug and think they're "superior", because they're obviously wrong, right?

It seems to me that it's less an issue of the vegetarian or vegan themselves thinking their morals are superior, that much is obvious from the fact that they hold those morals at all, but rather it is the critic who thinks veg*an's morals are superior and feels the need to convince themselves otherwise with strident criticism.

[BrandonE]

Originally Posted by Revasser

Personally, I would like know why, if someone didn't think their morals were "superior" they would hold them as their morals in the first place. Anyone who holds any morals at all holds those morals precisely because they think they are superior. This goes for everything, not just whether or not to eat meat.
...
It seems to me that it's less an issue of the vegetarian or vegan themselves thinking their morals are superior, that much is obvious from the fact that they hold those morals at all, but rather it is the critic who thinks veg*an's morals are superior and feels the need to convince themselves otherwise with strident criticism.

Wow. Great points Revasser. I'll agree and disagree.

Yes, everyone who holds to an ideal thinks it is superior. However, not everyone who holds to an ideal thinks it is superior for EVERYONE. My moral choices are right for me. Some of them I believe are applicable to all of humanity (the ideal of not stealing, as you mention), but others are not as clearly universally applicable.

I do think that there are those who fit your second paragraph and feel a need to justify themselves. The ridiculous level to which some anti-PETA groups sink is a perfect example.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that different people may examine the same issue and come to equally legitimate, though different conclusions. The problem that I was trying to address in the OP seems to occur when someone on one side or the other gets self-righteous about their position. I think, as pointed out earlier in this thread, that the blog I originally cited may be guilty of this. This can (and does) happen on both sides. Fundamentalism, no matter its "flavor" is an ugly thing IMO.

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

I think it is perfectly reasonable that different people may examine the same issue and come to equally legitimate, though different conclusions. The problem that I was trying to address in the OP seems to occur when someone on one side or the other gets self-righteous about their position. I think, as pointed out earlier in this thread, that the blog I originally cited may be guilty of this. This can (and does) happen on both sides. Fundamentalism, no matter its "flavor" is an ugly thing IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you here. I know a couple of other (newly "converted") vegetarians locally who I spend time with regularly and I'm just as happy to tell them to stop making fools of themselves with regard to this as I am with the meat-eaters I know.

Self-righteous vegetarians irritate me as well, especially so since I was one for about the first 6 months of my current dietary habits and I have a fair idea why they act that way. It's for much the same reason why some people are critical to the point of absurdity (which, incidentally I was for about 6 months up to the day of my becoming a vegetarian .) They're generally still uncertain about whether they made the "right" decision and they become self-righteous fools in order to help them integrate their new diet properly into their ethical structure. Most will get over it once it's just another part of their life, rather than something new that they are still internally wrestling with.

I like to think I've gotten over it, anyways. It's been years now hopefully I've mellowed out.

[BrandonE]

Originally Posted by Revasser

I like to think I've gotten over it, anyways. It's been years now hopefully I've mellowed out.

It seems to me that you have. Thanks for the discussion.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Revasser

They're generally still uncertain about whether they made the "right" decision and they become self-righteous fools in order to help them integrate their new diet properly into their ethical structure.

Then there's the constant questions from family ("but why?"), the prods and jokes of friends ("shut up hippy!", "hide the lentils, here comes Scott"), and the open and sometimes aggressive criticism you're likely to encounter.

[Revasser]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Then there's the constant questions from family ("but why?"), the prods and jokes of friends ("shut up hippy!", "hide the lentils, here comes Scott"), and the open and sometimes aggressive criticism you're likely to encounter.

That doesn't help, sure enough. I've found I've become fairly inured to that kind of silliness, though there are other things I've mentioned before that people do that still "get my goat."

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

Yes, everyone who holds to an ideal thinks it is superior. However, not everyone who holds to an ideal thinks it is superior for EVERYONE. My moral choices are right for me. Some of them I believe are applicable to all of humanity (the ideal of not stealing, as you mention), but others are not as clearly universally applicable.

I did post something along these lines myself, but lost it twice, so now I'll take the lazy way out and say,'What he said.'
If you feel the need to tell people their choices are wrong in order to justify to yourself that your choice is right, then you need to sit down and have a look at what your choice is, because obviously something isn't sitting quite right with you.
I don't feel the need to be talked down to so that you feel better about a personal decision. If you're struggling and you need a sounding board to get it straight in your head, happy to listen and offer support for whatever your decision is. Not interested in you bolstering yourself by telling me my morals are at fault.

[akshar]

I don't eat meat mostly because of morals, but a little bit due to religious beliefs, (im hindu). I look a this way, if you would like the burden of thousands of dead animals, want fungus growing in your intestines, if your lucky maybe in your stomach and maybe even mental problems then eat away. The reasn fungus will grow in your intestines is because meat rots quickly and our digestive system is too long for meat to take it in, and outr teeth. Morally its wrong to go kill some helpless animal and eat it, would you like if your mum or dad or bruv or sis or anone you knew get cut into pieces then served with ketchup and ate then go down into the sea? I know i wouldn't. Animals have rights too, they deserve respect as well. I think people who don't eat or drink dairy products are full shilings, since taking milk out from a cow does not harm it any way out at all. Personally, i think meat is bad for you, even fish eggs etc. When your precious chickens cows run out youll turn to other animals, then extincion comes then canibbalism comes, its inevitable. My prents have never said DO NOT EAT MEAT! They always told me it's your choice, we advise you you dont but we will love since you are our son. Oh well i haven't forced anything on, g'day!!!!!!ragsy(thas me<<<<<<?<?</,