[Discussion] Are vegans morally superior than omnivores?
- Thread starter Beast Busty Beauty
- Start date
Ace of the fire fist
Active member
life's too short to worry about all that. im hear for a good time not a long time. meat tastes good.
salamander uchiha
Active member
We need to define what do you mean by "Superior". In terms of morality? This begs the question, "What is morality?". Is it subjective? If yes, then no. If no, then we need to define the tenants of morality. Are the tenants of morality subjective or objectives? If subjective, then even though there exists an objective morality out there, we all however, by the limits of our being, will be following the subjective tenants of morality. Therefore the notion of 'Superiority' will be in question.
Now, allow me to offer a Dharmic perspective. It works on the philosophy of Ahinsa - the minimum harm path.
This accepts the fact that life is suffering and dependent on violence. Therefore, our goal should be live a life in a manner that minimizes harm to ourselves and others. Depending on this notion, different actions are hierarchically put in terms of their decreasing harm.
In terms of food choice, here it is:
Eating humans < Eating animals < Eating plants < Eating plant fruits < Drinking water < Eating and drinking nothing.
Basically it is less harmful for you and the environment if you eat nothing than drink water than eat fruits of plants than eat plants than eat animals than eat humans. So we should eat nothing and die? Well there is where the Dharmic traditions say, "The greatest harm or violence is one that is done upon oneself". So, if you think by not eating you are harming yourself then drink water. If you think by not eating you are harming yourself then eat fruits and so on. But if you can survive on little but just cannot help but control your gluttony then that's called morally wrong way to live or Adharmic way to live.
This means if your body needs meat for one reason or another for betterment of health, by all means go ahead and eat meat. In the end it all depends on what your body needs to remain healthy should be deciding what you eat; rather than your taste buds and some rigid ideology.
PS.
This is not vegan philosophy. It's the philosophy of Ahinsa as described in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
Now, allow me to offer a Dharmic perspective. It works on the philosophy of Ahinsa - the minimum harm path.
This accepts the fact that life is suffering and dependent on violence. Therefore, our goal should be live a life in a manner that minimizes harm to ourselves and others. Depending on this notion, different actions are hierarchically put in terms of their decreasing harm.
In terms of food choice, here it is:
Eating humans < Eating animals < Eating plants < Eating plant fruits < Drinking water < Eating and drinking nothing.
Basically it is less harmful for you and the environment if you eat nothing than drink water than eat fruits of plants than eat plants than eat animals than eat humans. So we should eat nothing and die? Well there is where the Dharmic traditions say, "The greatest harm or violence is one that is done upon oneself". So, if you think by not eating you are harming yourself then drink water. If you think by not eating you are harming yourself then eat fruits and so on. But if you can survive on little but just cannot help but control your gluttony then that's called morally wrong way to live or Adharmic way to live.
This means if your body needs meat for one reason or another for betterment of health, by all means go ahead and eat meat. In the end it all depends on what your body needs to remain healthy should be deciding what you eat; rather than your taste buds and some rigid ideology.
PS.
This is not vegan philosophy. It's the philosophy of Ahinsa as described in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
Clown World
Bonbibonkers' bf
Yes however, it really only rests on one notion, are you a hypocrite and discriminate based on species, usually determined by culture or do you believe humans are objectively superior in every way and become inherently anti any other, any other position is definite immorality on the part of the meat eater.
HowDidIGetPrem
Active member
Awards
100% yes, these guys are going to give you all kinds of mentions of morality being subjective and they're not wrong, but do you think they'd pull the same card if the question were "are racists morally inferior" or something of the sort? If morality is subjective, the question boils down to whether or not YOU give two shizzles about the treatment of livestock and view vegans' renouncement as righteous.
Being vegan is an additional point for me.
Being vegan is an additional point for me.
Yeah right
Active member
Based on the rules of morality that are for some reason given to animals, yes I’m a monster. But that’s a good thing.
I think this depends largely upon one's own convictions.
I can understand and appreciate a personal decision to not eat animals, and to hold to that. The moral value of that decision would depend upon its motivations, however. Choosing to be vegan to then be able to place yourself on a pedestal from which to berate those around you makes you a douche, regardless of what you're eating or who else is part of your group.
I can understand and appreciate a personal decision to not eat animals, and to hold to that. The moral value of that decision would depend upon its motivations, however. Choosing to be vegan to then be able to place yourself on a pedestal from which to berate those around you makes you a douche, regardless of what you're eating or who else is part of your group.
They aren't. Placing yourself as a moral supremacist over a dietary choice never tends to work well, in contrast you see more vegans attempting to "fix it" or ameliorate a higher moral standard than personal satisfaction over making that choice. They tend to perfectly fit in the "superman complex" compartment.