Moral Mandate of Not Eating Animals

Question

Do you think that abstaining from eating meat (I am a vegan but will leave out milk and eggs here) is an objective moral truth, or do you think that it is a personal truth?  (For example we can say that not killing humans for our appetites is an objective moral truth, whereas feeling called to become an artist is a personal truth)

I know that for myself, I cannot physically eat flesh because to do so is a sin from a deep part within me.  To hate non-meat eaters is to destroy the vegan ideal of compassion.  Yet to be loose on a deep personal conviction by saying what will be will be in regards to others eating meat, is also in a sense to take away from your own convictions.

So what do you think--is abstaining from meat an objective moral truth, or is it a personal path that people can choose to better themselves?

Any thoughts welcome.

Sungod595 · Answer

****Sorry, I meant to say:***

'To hate MEAT EATERS is to deatroy the ideal of compassion.'

ahimsa32fa · Answer

Your question about moral truth is arbitrary without establishing a definition.  Were the Donner party members abandoning an accepted moral truth when they ate their friends (they didn't of course, kill them to eat them)?

If my only source of food is animal flesh, shall I die of starvation before I eat an animal?  In other words is subsistence hunting or fishing a moral "sin"?

Is a human animal's life of more moral value than any other animal?

Sungod595 · Answer

----''If my only source of food is animal flesh, shall I die of starvation before I eat an animal? In other words is subsistence hunting or fishing a moral "sin"?''-----

I think this is an excellent question and I think. Lot of vegetarians/vegans would answer it differently.  How would you answer it?

ahimsa32fa · Answer

I've answered similar questions countless times here, in classrooms, in print, etc.

I find little reason to criticize those whose only source of nutrition is flesh and dairy.  At this moment that might include those in war zones, those suffering from natural disasters or those driven to abject poverty by capitalistic greed.

...and I'm not convinced that the life of every sentient being isn't just as valuable (in the very least to that individual being) as human life is to (though even then rather selectivity) any human.

SiYama · Answer

I think is a moral principle. It is difficult to tell about "truths". Moral principles are changed over time and in accordance with the situations of human life.
 I think humanity has already been far more compliant with violence for example.

 But we need to note that moral principles can not be placed against the survival of the person. In the situation where you can only survive by eating animals, it is reasonable that you do, just as it is reasonable that someone kill someone else in self-defense, a quite serious situation.

To hate is not the best way, I think. When a change of thougths starts in society only a minority understand is new vision as the correct. 
When you speak about moral reasons of veganism, many people may outraged with the suggestion that their behavior is not properly moral, it is because they truly believe they are correct and really can not see any problem in his actions. 

I think that if you become vegan not for health or fitness, you should have done this in response to a moral questioning, so you accept this as a moral issue, no matter if most people understand different nowadays, or not all cultures and people in the world could see this as a moral issue. It's how moral codes are.

Unfortunately, in the day to day you will often let people think it's just your personal choice, in order to enable your life in society.

Search HappyCow

Vegan / Vegetarian Discussion - All Things Veg*n Forum