A Question about Vegetarianism for Moral Reasons

  • Thread starter Thread starter trentonzero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trentonzero

Guest
There seems to be a classical argument that goes like this:

“It’s immoral to eat meat because it causes pain to animals.”

“Jesus Christ was sinless. He ate meat. To the degree you believe eating meat immoral, you deny Christianity.”

Does the (Christian) vegetarian have any answers to this?

I’ve been thinking about this some.

The only one I can think of:

"We are granted lordship over the earth (to cultivate it) in Genesis. So we have the right to kill animals for our food and neccessity. But Jesus didn’t teach his followers to walk around the world mindlessly taking those things to which they were entitled, especially from those weaker than them. The Church hasn’t taught it either. Justice (everyone getting what is their due) is a virtue…but so is Charity (the strong voluntarily giving the weak more than justice demands).

We say that the charity can be done for moral reasons, why can’t vegetarianism be done for moral reasons in the same way (provided we don’t go too far and say that the eating of meat is immoral…it is virtous for a landlord to give a poor man some leeway in paying his rent, but its not immoral for the landlord to expect his money…so it is virtous to not eat animals, but its not immoral to eat them).

Is this way of thinking valid? If not, what is wrong with it?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I’ve been down this road before. Here’s the best answer I’ve ever come across.

westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

Jim
Click to expand...
I’m grateful for the article, but I don’t think it answers my question (or if it does, I don’t see it).

I’m not actually a vegetarian myself (though I can respect the choice to be one)…I just find the topic an interesting one to think about. I think it makes sense that there is some nobility in choosing not to eat meat…I’m just trying to find out how that feeling may or may not tie in with Catholic dogma.

Most sources I’ve read say something like “Jesus ate meat. We are given lordship over the world. So, we can do whatever we want to animals.” (No, not saying that the webpage you gave me said that).
 
trentonzero said:
I think it makes sense that there is some nobility in choosing not to eat meat…I’m just trying to find out how that feeling may or may not tie in with Catholic dogma.
Click to expand...
I think as a spiritual discipline vegetarianism is respectable. For example, Cistercians (Trappists) do not eat meat unless individual medical reasons require it.

But, in and of itself, I do not see why vegetarianism should be regarded as praiseworthy. I think any virtue in the practice of vegetarianism would be secondary to its goal - the reason why an individual adopted it as a lifestyle.
 
I know practicing Catholics who believe that eating meat is immoral because of the way we farm animals. They’re not opposed to eating meat in principle, but rather, because of the way we keep animals penned up, in close quarters that cause the animals suffering, pump them up with steroids to an unnatural degree, etc.

While I like being at the top of the food chain, I can’t say these people are wrong. I, too, have chosen not to eat veal because of the way the animals are treated to keep the meat so tender. I’m just not ready to go all the way over to the other side over this issue.

So I think it’s clear that eating meat is not against Christianity. It’s also clear, in my opinion, that choosing not to eat meat because of the suffering we cause animals in the way we farm them is also not opposed to Christianity.

What would be opposed to Christianity would be to refuse to eat animals out of a belief that animals have rights equal to humans.
 
I thought that website about vegetarian myths was good…thanks for that post.

I think not eating meat or reducing meat consumption might be a nice spiritual discipline in the sense of humility, being poor in spirit, getting by with less, etc.

But in terms of being inhumane to animals… the vegetarians probably don’t think about the combine or sickle mower going through the fields, chopping little bunny rabbits’ heads off as it harvests the grain. Or the clearing of wild habitat to cultivate fields. Even the home gardener has to make a choice - am I going to feed my vegetables to my family, or am I going to let the gophers, snails, and catterpillars eat their fill first? By and large we outsource our food production to other people, so most of us have no clue what the real impact on animals is, even for vegetable products. Suffice it to say, it’s not so simple as saying “it’s a plant, so no animals were harmed”. Simply being able to eat is a matter of competition, survival of the fittest, and at some level, we have to choose, human life or animal life.

That said, animals should be treated with some level of dignity. There are pros and cons to everything, but at some level I find what I know about modern methods of meat production somewhat disturbing.
 
Just as a FYI. The Rule of St. Benedict states something to the effect, “eat no flesh of quadrupedes.” In other words, chicken and fish is allowed, but no cows, pigs, dogs, horse, etc.

Jim
 
trentonzero said:
I’m grateful for the article, but I don’t think it answers my question (or if it does, I don’t see it).

I’m not actually a vegetarian myself (though I can respect the choice to be one)…I just find the topic an interesting one to think about. I think it makes sense that there is some nobility in choosing not to eat meat…I’m just trying to find out how that feeling may or may not tie in with Catholic dogma.

Most sources I’ve read say something like “Jesus ate meat. We are given lordship over the world. So, we can do whatever we want to animals.” (No, not saying that the web page you gave me said that).
Click to expand...
There is no Catholic dogma concerning diet.

However, various spiritual disciplines within the Catholic Church, are vegetarian to some degree or completely.

Many monastic orders follow the Rule of St. Benedict, which allows eating animal flesh except those of four legged creatures. Fish, poultry and dairy are allowed.

The Rule of St Albert, no meat is allowed. Fish, eggs and dairy are allowed.

I don’t know of any orders which are vegan, i.e. no animal products, period.

There is a good cook book if you want to get into further, written by a Benedictine Monk, called, Recipes From a Monastery Kitchen, by Br. Victor D’Avila-Latourrette. He has some good recipes which follow the seasons of the year, with some prayers to go along with them.

Jim
 
If one is Catholic, I would think that conforming to the Old Rule, so long as it does not impair health (and as I recall, the Rule makes allowances for that) would be a rewarding practice. And whether or not one is Catholic, yes, there are the modern husbandry issues, as well as the ‘ecological footprint’ ones to consider (which may possibly be seen as a form of charity), and very often, the sheer health benefits, depending on ones constitution.

Of course, there are people who just think most meat tastes funny. 😛
 
wasn’t paul a vegetarian?

the way we raise animals for slaughter today is completely unrelated to the way they were raised in … well, every other age since adam. it’s not only a matter of whether or not we should kill animals, it’s also a matter of how factory farming affects the environment, the animals, and the people who raise them.

i highly recommend the book the omnivore’s dilemma by michael pollan. it’s not from a religious point of view, but the moral issues raised are important for everyone to ponder.
 
trentonzero said:
There seems to be a classical argument that goes like this:

“It’s immoral to eat meat because it causes pain to animals.”

“Jesus Christ was sinless. He ate meat. To the degree you believe eating meat immoral, you deny Christianity.”
?
Click to expand...
when Jesus ate meat he ate meat which was raised and killed according to kosher guidelines, that is, humanely, raised on natural feed in natural surroundings, killed quickly and humanely according to the law, so as to minimize pain and suffering to the animal, and prepared according to the law. Eating meat does not cause pain to animals. the way animals are raised and killed may, however, cause them pain, and unneccesary pain and stress for the animal is not only humane, but makes a better healthier product, so meat eaters should try to obtain meat raised and killed in this manner.

the Christian vegetarian, to answer OP, has not got a leg to stand on if he tries to claim a biblical or moral justification for his personal choice.
 
emily47017 said:
wasn’t paul a vegetarian?.
Click to expand...
Where did you get that idea?

Jokingly, I would tell vegans that Cain was and look how he turned out, but I don’t know where you got that idea about Paul. Unless you talking about Paul McCarthy?
 
Mirdath said:
If one is Catholic, I would think that conforming to the Old Rule, so long as it does not impair health (and as I recall, the Rule makes allowances for that) would be a rewarding practice. And whether or not one is Catholic, yes, there are the modern husbandry issues, as well as the ‘ecological footprint’ ones to consider (which may possibly be seen as a form of charity), and very often, the sheer health benefits, depending on ones constitution.

Of course, there are people who just think most meat tastes funny. 😛
Click to expand...
I like meat. I fast, but if I did give it up, I would feel like I was doing something that would go against tradition. Grandma’s meatloaf, steak on the grill (on sale only) and all the other things I really enjoy. I dont think I am tough enough to give it all up.
:nope:
🤷

Guess I am a lightweight.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Just as a FYI. The Rule of St. Benedict states something to the effect, “eat no flesh of quadrupedes.” In other words, chicken and fish is allowed, but no cows, pigs, dogs, horse, etc.

Jim
Click to expand...
what the Holy Rule actually says, in Chapter 39 which is about the Proper Amount of Food, is that except for the sick who are very weak, everyone should abstain entirely from eating the meat of four-footed animals. The same chapter advises two kinds of cooked food be presented at the noon and evening meals, with the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables when they are available. This rule is more concerned with quantity and avoidance of overindulgence.
 
Hellisreal said:
I like meat. I fast, but if I did give it up, I would feel like I was doing something that would go against tradition. Grandma’s meatloaf, steak on the grill (on sale only) and all the other things I really enjoy. I dont think I am tough enough to give it all up.
:nope:
🤷

Guess I am a lightweight.
Click to expand...
I tried to give up meat, but my diet got too boring. I don’t have to “have” meat everyday, but I enjoy my beef, too.
 
oops! i found where i’d gotten the idea that paul was a vegetarian, and i had totally read it wrong. it’s 1 corinthians 8:13 –

“therefore, if food is the cause of their falling, i will never eat meat, so that i may not cause one of them to fall.”

it’s in the context of food sacrificed to idols, and since idols don’t really exist there’s no reason not to eat the sacrifices, but if a christian doesn’t understand that and sees you eating food sacrificed to an idol, he might get the idea that idols are okay for christians.

so having skimmed all of that stuff again, it seems to me that paul is saying that no food is verboten, but if you believe you should abstain, and you believe it for the glory of god, then by all means abstain for the glory of god! 🙂
 
Hi, I’m a catholic vegetarian, once vegan and back to a vegetarian again. I think being a vegetarian for moral reasons is okay. I am not really against meat like i used to be, but the care in factory farms is still pretty bad and many vegetarians choose not to support it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top