Implosion of Moral Veganism

To weep, whine, wail, and despair at or about lions, tigers, bears for eating meat — is to be, it is agreed, patently insane.

Yet to yip, yap, yelp, and yell at or about Muhammad, Matt, Minh or Miguel for eating meat — is to be a Moral Vegan: A tacitly tolerated type of insane.

Moreover, the untenable insanity of Moral Veganism hopelessly depends on an Anthropocentrism which, if accepted, belies humans’ responsibility to forgo feasts of flesh–else, if rejected, belying humans’ response-ability thereto.

5 thoughts on “Implosion of Moral Veganism

  1. ‘Moreover, the untenable insanity of Moral Veganism hopelessly depends on an Anthropocentrism which, if accepted, belies humans’ responsibility to forgo feasts of flesh–else, if rejected, belying humans’ response-ability thereto.’

    Even if humans are the only known entity that is able to understand suffering?

    Like

      1. I double-checked before posting the first comment – I read it as ‘runs contrary to’.

        I thought you were saying:
        If we accept that humans are the single most important entity in the universe, we don’t have a responsibility to avoid eating animals; if we reject it, we don’t need to respond to the call to avoid eating animals because we would hold ourselves to the same lower standard as animals.

        If humans can understand suffering and everything else can’t, surely Anthropocentrism and a responsibility to forgo feasts of flesh could co-exist.

        Like

      2. A perfect reading. And to be sure: those two could coexist, through sentimentality, vanity or some other groundless fiat. But let’s not skip over the begged question that the reason we tolerate non-human carnivores is because they don’t know any better.

        Like

      3. ‘And to be sure: those two could coexist, through sentimentality, vanity or some other groundless fiat. But let’s not skip over the begged question that the reason we tolerate non-human carnivores is because they don’t know any better.’

        Sorry for resurrecting this, but is tolerating non-human carnivores because they don’t know any better a begged question due to its failure to stand up to human-human interaction (i.e. we would not tolerate a human killing and cannibalising another human, or even torturously killing and eating an animal, purely because they are not of sound mind to know any better)?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s