That's a common view I see in my vegan colleagues. Western=evil, non-Western=Good. Or, actually, everything evil is "Western", everything non evil is "non-Western". For instance; anything evil that happens in Tibet is the result of "western influences".
That's as surprising as it is brilliant.
Our greatest mutation, our large brains, has led to some silly ideas is all.
Yep.
Really anything taken to enough of an extreme is almost always (if not always) by definition silly.
I also have to wonder what the shoes, belts wallets etc vegans own are made out of.
I also doubt there is enough farmland to feed the entire world (even just to the point we do now) without supplementing with animal food.
As for me, its based ultimately on anthropomorphizing. Animals appear to feel pain, express emotions, have faces, etc... I can empathize with the pain they must feel at being treated cruelly.
See now to me that's a much more honest answer than this "higher nobility" routine I have more frequently run into. Damn plant haters.
*ETA: though I've gotten into fights for suggesting Mike Vick did nothing any more morally repugnant than many meat producers.
Pls tell me you were just yanking their chain.
Your "Heiress Problem" is hardly a fair parallel to the situation of killing animals for meat. The problem I see with what the Heiress is doing is not that it's "cruel" it's that it's pointless and wasteful. Why not give the dogs away? She's having them put down for no reason at all. You might not think killing animals to eat them is a good reason, but it's mere question-begging to equate it with killing animals for nothing
The heiress example is blatantly silly if not outright baiting so this is the only time I'll address that. Cmon. Not to imply killing animals for food is "automatically OK" per se, but at the very least the degree of immorality at killing for her "reasons" vs killing for food is hardly a close call.
I could also argue that who are vegetarians/vegans to say that drawing the line at animals vs plants is fair? What about cruelty to plants? They're just as alive as any animal. If it was feasible, would vegans instead eat only some kind of synthesized food created in a lab and save the slaughter of innocent plants? Or is the "plants aren't like me enough" make it OK? If so, then this is not a question of morality, but of "guilt by association" (for lack of a better way to put it offhand). ie animals are kinda like us enough that we feel guilty about it (as some have said), so it's not really about right vs wrong at all, but just what does/doesn't make one "queasy."
Re cruelty to animals being bred for food, I am all for combating that -course then you get into the huge subjectivity of drawing the line of what's cruel or not cruel -
Anyway ultimately and as others have said, to each their own; I have nothing against anyone being vegetarian or vegan per se. In fact I do respect it in a way, because going from omnivore to that is likely not easy, and I have to respect someone making a change in their life that is not easy for moral reasons, even if I disagree with them or think some of their reasonings have flaws. Just spare me the alleged superior morality of it .
PS - I bet that if our society DID decide killing animals for food was cruel and it was outlawed, cost of plant food would absolutely go through the roof, and more than a few vegetarians/vegans would be quite willing to go back to being omnivores if meat was cheap enough.
