Vegetarians, claiming their refusal to eat meat (or, in some particularly severe cases, dairy products as well) to be directed at the saving lives of exploited animals, constantly say that human beings, due to their biological features, don’t need meat to sustain life and can receive all the necessary substances from meatless food. Vegetable diet, they say, is as healthy as the one that contains animal proteins. To which one can reply: it means, that non-vegetarian diet is as healthy, as a vegetarian one.
After all, why eating animals is considered to be as awful as vegetarians seem to believe? Should we eradicate animal predators or at least omnivores for the reason that they can sustain their lives by eating only plants, but don’t seem to be eager to refuse their immoral custom of eating meat? Why is it normal for bears but immoral for humans?
They say that animals are our friends, and one doesn’t eat one’s friends, to which I completely agree. Some animals (for example, dogs, cats and horses) may be considered to possess the necessary intellectual potential to sustain some kind of superstructure over their basis set of instincts that can be considered their personality. This is the reason people (at least the ones belonging to civilized cultures) don’t eat cats and dogs – it is the act of eating an intelligent being that is disgusting, not the act of eating the being that moves and breathes. Can one suspect that a cow possesses any level of intelligence worth speaking of? Does a cow have personality? The answer is no. That is why vegetarianism is a self-deception more than anything – all the necessary limitations concerning food already exist.