Veganism: Moral Superiority?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
#1
You've seen the vegan activists, and many are indeed over the top, but not all are. Regardless of this, the argument they usually come down to is ethics. Their question is posed as such, "What is the difference between a cow and a human?" This question is to insinuate that there is an equivalence between the two in terms of consumption and to show the hypocrisy of meat eaters. They wish to equate animals (including humans) as all being sentient and therefore, we have no right to consume them. Their mission then, in this debate, is to eliminate any and all reasons one would have to consume meat. In terms of ethics, they would then argue that meat consumption is immoral.

As a Christian we are at somewhat of a bias, because Jesus, Himself, ate meat. For meat consumption to be immoral one would have to suggest that Jesus partook in an immoral act, therefore making vegans morally superior to Christ. Obviously, Jesus according to the word of God is sinless, and therefore and by implication, meat consumption cannot be immoral. Now it is easy to hide behind such religious beliefs in the view of non-theists, but in terms of Christian circles this is actually quite a sufficient response. To the secular world, however, how can we argue that meat consumption is not immoral?

We could of course go down the presuppositional argument and inform them that their morality without God is simply subjective and therefore they have no right to impose their subjective morals upon everyone because in a world of subjectivity there is no absolute standard of morality. Therefore, meat consumption and veganism are on equal footing.
We also could take this as an opportunity to present to them their sinfulness in God's eyes and how where they think they are morally superior in the area of diet, they fall short in other areas of life. Either way, they too have the burden of proof in order to equate humans with animals, and even have to show why sentience is the measure by which consumption should occur.

You'll be informed in a moment that, for example, there are certain creatures such as muscles and mollusks that do not have such senses that we have and therefore based upon the argument from vegans they ought to be consumed because they do not suffer. This they will take issue with stating that it is an exception, but here then we are now making rules to this, and by who's standard? Who sets the line? Who enforces it?

Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on. Is taking the life of an animal justified? Yes. Why? There are nutrients in such animals that are beneficial. Now, yes, there are better options than meat for such nutrients, but who are you to dictate to me which source I choose? Again, vegans live in a world of subjective morality, you'll often see that such people are not Christian but New Age individuals. Often not believing in God, so to state moral superiority would be to state it in a world without a definite standard.

Why do I consume eggs, for example? Am I not robbing the bird of its chicks? Is this equivalent to abortion? Eggs are nutritious, and the cholesterol in them are not, in contrast to vegan propaganda, bad for health. In fact studies have been done by Dr Gundry MD where his patient's cholesterol levels lowered in direct correlation to the amount of egg yolks and shellfish they consumed. There are health benefits to animal consumption, and even if there weren't and it could be made neutral through limitation in diet, then what reason would there be to complete avoidance? To save the life of the animal?

Okay, so why make an animal suffer and die to just please my palette? Why take the life of another creature? First and foremost, there is no equating of man to mammal. In the wild lions take out zebras and I don't see vegans taking issue with this. They take issue, again, with this line of reasoning because such animals are not as mentally capable as us, or have that moral center. My issue with this is to say, who made mental capabilities or capacities the means by which murder is then justified? If taking the life of another creature is murder for us, it has to be for another animal. Cognizance is not an excuse for sin, it is not something that allows one to be acquitted. A wrong is a wrong. If animal and man are both sentient creatures then their mental capacity as a moral agent should by no means dictate their diet.

If such is the case, one could argue that the mentally ill could consume meat. Or for that matter commit any egregious act and be justified. We know this isn't the case. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss in this respect.

So in reality, the vegan has no foundation to stand on to support their moral superiority, no matter if the diet is optimum or not for humanity.

PS: This was all spurred on by watching Roaming Millennial vs Vegan Gains in a debate on a video of hers.
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
#2
No one actually has to read this, I just wanted to type it out and express my thoughts. Its pretty long, haha. Wanted to mull over it in my mind.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
#3
.... Again, vegans live in a world of subjective morality, you'll often see that such people are not Christian but New Age individuals. Often not believing in God, so to state moral superiority would be to state it in a world without a definite standard.
....
I would have thought that would suffice...

Game, set, and match!
 
Jan 21, 2017
647
28
0
#4
Ah yes veganism, another cookie cutter movement for today's overly sensitive wishywashy weak dumb lazy generation. Its terrible, never saw a vegan who can do physical labor.
Jesus ate meat as you said, end of discussion on it being immoral. Animals are animals, and people are people and we are to rule over animals.
 
Dec 3, 2016
1,674
25
0
#5
You've seen the vegan activists
Yes, and I have a question for those seeking to protect the animals by not eating them... WHY are you eating the animals food???

Anytime on of those nutjobs starts telling me they don't eat meat and why... I typically ecuse myself with something like, "well, it's getting close to lunch so I'm going to get some barbecue... wanna go, I'm buyin?"
 
Z

Zi

Guest
#6
I turn it back to them if I know they have pets.. it's the same argument.. They are against zoos being in operation yet isolate animals for their enjoyment.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
448
83
57
#7
As soon as I read the op I thought of this YouTube video.
[video]https://youtu.be/z0O_VYcsIk8[/video]
It cracks me up every time I see it.
Blessings
Bill
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#8
I turn it back to them if I know they have pets.. it's the same argument.. They are against zoos being in operation yet isolate animals for their enjoyment.
Pets are domesticated animals, though. They have been bred to live with humans. Zoos comprise wild animals, not domesticated ones.
 
A

Ariel82

Guest
#9
I believe we should eat the food that keeps our bodies healthy...that is different to each body type.

Some bodies can't process too much meat protein...others need the meat to function.

For example diabetics should eat more protein than sweets (fruit, etc)

However people who have gout should avoid meat and beans.

Diet does not affect the spiritual body, just the physical one....gluttony on the other had...is something to be avoided.
 
Z

Zi

Guest
#10
Only been normalized. They will only ever live fairly with their kind.
Pets are domesticated animals, though. They have been bred to live with humans. Zoos comprise wild animals, not domesticated ones.
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
#11
I believe we should eat the food that keeps our bodies healthy...that is different to each body type.

Some bodies can't process too much meat protein...others need the meat to function.

For example diabetics should eat more protein than sweets (fruit, etc)

However people who have gout should avoid meat and beans.

Diet does not affect the spiritual body, just the physical one....gluttony on the other had...is something to be avoided.
Right, this isn't a rebuttal to veganism on a dietary level as I actually believe that a vegan diet can be extremely healthy in consideration of consuming a lot of greens and cruciferous vegetables, along with certain fruits and nuts. No doubt there are health benefits, I am only addressing the idea that it is morally superior. Which is false.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#12
I am not a vegan, my favorite thing to eat is steak. The only moral ground vegans really have (in my opinion) is how on many of the farms, the animals live in horrific conditions- like cows standing in feces all day, and chickens suffocating each other in crowded chicken houses. I'd much rather have my hamburgers and fried chicken enjoying a pleasant existence before they are killed for my consumption.

This is the only moral ground, that I can see. But it is one of those things that are secondary or tertiary. After all, Paul in Corinthians says that neither eating nor abstaing from meat commends us to God.
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
#13
I am not a vegan, my favorite thing to eat is steak. The only moral ground vegans really have (in my opinion) is how on many of the farms, the animals live in horrific conditions- like cows standing in feces all day, and chickens suffocating each other in crowded chicken houses. I'd much rather have my hamburgers and fried chicken enjoying a pleasant existence before they are killed for my consumption.

This is the only moral ground, that I can see. But it is one of those things that are secondary or tertiary. After all, Paul in Corinthians says that neither eating nor abstaing from meat commends us to God.
This is true, there is a documentary called Earthlings which is heart wrenching that reveals how terrible such industries are in how they treat animals. However, even in prime conditions of being grass fed and grass finished vegans would still take issue with taking its life for consumption.
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#14
This is true, there is a documentary called Earthlings which is heart wrenching that reveals how terrible such industries are in how they treat animals. However, even in prime conditions of being grass fed and grass finished vegans would still take issue with taking its life for consumption.
I would then ask if the moral issue is a desire to take no life, are they pro abortion? I find it incongruous to be a vegan on the grounds of "take no life", yet be for abortion. If they eat no eggs, why would it be morally alright for a woman to abort her child?

I don't have anything against vegans, if a person really has a conviction to take no life, they should follow their convictions. Where I find it incongruous is when a person like Hitler was a vegetarian, yet cared not for human life.
 
T

Tabitha4thelord

Guest
#15
I like all food, Im trying to stick with meats, fruits and vegies to lose weight but If it were up to me I would live on chocolate :eek:
 

BenFTW

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2012
4,834
981
113
33
#16
I like all food, Im trying to stick with meats, fruits and vegies to lose weight but If it were up to me I would live on chocolate :eek:
Chocolate is healthy if you eat the kind that is 70% or greater in terms of cocoa. But then its also bitter, haha.
 
May 12, 2017
2,641
65
0
#17
You've seen the vegan activists, and many are indeed over the top, but not all are. Regardless of this, the argument they usually come down to is ethics. Their question is posed as such, "What is the difference between a cow and a human?" This question is to insinuate that there is an equivalence between the two in terms of consumption and to show the hypocrisy of meat eaters. They wish to equate animals (including humans) as all being sentient and therefore, we have no right to consume them. Their mission then, in this debate, is to eliminate any and all reasons one would have to consume meat. In terms of ethics, they would then argue that meat consumption is immoral.

As a Christian we are at somewhat of a bias, because Jesus, Himself, ate meat. For meat consumption to be immoral one would have to suggest that Jesus partook in an immoral act, therefore making vegans morally superior to Christ. Obviously, Jesus according to the word of God is sinless, and therefore and by implication, meat consumption cannot be immoral. Now it is easy to hide behind such religious beliefs in the view of non-theists, but in terms of Christian circles this is actually quite a sufficient response. To the secular world, however, how can we argue that meat consumption is not immoral?

We could of course go down the presuppositional argument and inform them that their morality without God is simply subjective and therefore they have no right to impose their subjective morals upon everyone because in a world of subjectivity there is no absolute standard of morality. Therefore, meat consumption and veganism are on equal footing.
We also could take this as an opportunity to present to them their sinfulness in God's eyes and how where they think they are morally superior in the area of diet, they fall short in other areas of life. Either way, they too have the burden of proof in order to equate humans with animals, and even have to show why sentience is the measure by which consumption should occur.

You'll be informed in a moment that, for example, there are certain creatures such as muscles and mollusks that do not have such senses that we have and therefore based upon the argument from vegans they ought to be consumed because they do not suffer. This they will take issue with stating that it is an exception, but here then we are now making rules to this, and by who's standard? Who sets the line? Who enforces it?

Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on. Is taking the life of an animal justified? Yes. Why? There are nutrients in such animals that are beneficial. Now, yes, there are better options than meat for such nutrients, but who are you to dictate to me which source I choose? Again, vegans live in a world of subjective morality, you'll often see that such people are not Christian but New Age individuals. Often not believing in God, so to state moral superiority would be to state it in a world without a definite standard.

Why do I consume eggs, for example? Am I not robbing the bird of its chicks? Is this equivalent to abortion? Eggs are nutritious, and the cholesterol in them are not, in contrast to vegan propaganda, bad for health. In fact studies have been done by Dr Gundry MD where his patient's cholesterol levels lowered in direct correlation to the amount of egg yolks and shellfish they consumed. There are health benefits to animal consumption, and even if there weren't and it could be made neutral through limitation in diet, then what reason would there be to complete avoidance? To save the life of the animal?

Okay, so why make an animal suffer and die to just please my palette? Why take the life of another creature? First and foremost, there is no equating of man to mammal. In the wild lions take out zebras and I don't see vegans taking issue with this. They take issue, again, with this line of reasoning because such animals are not as mentally capable as us, or have that moral center. My issue with this is to say, who made mental capabilities or capacities the means by which murder is then justified? If taking the life of another creature is murder for us, it has to be for another animal. Cognizance is not an excuse for sin, it is not something that allows one to be acquitted. A wrong is a wrong. If animal and man are both sentient creatures then their mental capacity as a moral agent should by no means dictate their diet.

If such is the case, one could argue that the mentally ill could consume meat. Or for that matter commit any egregious act and be justified. We know this isn't the case. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss in this respect.

So in reality, the vegan has no foundation to stand on to support their moral superiority, no matter if the diet is optimum or not for humanity.

PS: This was all spurred on by watching Roaming Millennial vs Vegan Gains in a debate on a video of hers.
The Bible says everyone before the flood were vegans, for God had not given animal flesh for man to eat until after the flood.

Gen 9.3-4

[SUP]3 [/SUP]Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,247
25,713
113
#18
Mad cow disease was started because of animal abuse, and even when the cause was isolated and farmers everywhere warned to change their immoral practices, do you think they did? No, of course not, because many men are wicked and have a love of money, so greed drives many industries, including food productions. That means that mad cow disease broke out again, even after the massive waste and tragedy and deaths from the first time, and it probably won't be the last time either.

Knowing the terrible conditions livestock are subjected to is a legitimate reason to have a more ethical approach to where one shops and whom one buys their food from, and for some it may even mean giving up the consumption of meat with a change to
vegetarianism. Vegans don't eat any animal product or by product, which includes ice cream and honey and even prohibits the use of glue. That would take a great deal of knowledge, education, discipline, and self control. Hardly a lazy person's way.
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#19
Pets are domesticated animals, though. They have been bred to live with humans. Zoos comprise wild animals, not domesticated ones.
Your reasoning falls on it's face, because people have cats, are you saying cats are domesticated?
 
G

Galatea

Guest
#20
Your reasoning falls on it's face, because people have cats, are you saying cats are domesticated?
House cats are domestic animals. If they are left to be feral and breed indiscriminately, they have miserable lives. Not all cats are domesticated (lions, tigers, panthers).