The Hypocrisy of "Pure" Vegetarianism

Vibes-based sociology

First time here? I'm dabchick—unequal parts economist, philosopher, and mathematician, with an incurable habit of connecting dots and a Quixotic fantasy of being a renaissance man. After years of vanishing into online rabbit holes, I've developed a lust for thought and a preference for first-principles reasoning. Each week, I challenge myself to write, hoping that someone, somewhere, may marginally improve their world model. It may even be me. That’s what the comment section is for!

[Short post this week]

I found a post in my Twitter feed that was carefully designed in a lab for the sole purpose of infuriating me.

This moral grandstanding is nothing new for India. It is quite common to see restaurants advertise themselves as “pure vegetarian”, i.e. no eggs, no meat. Some (though not all) practitioners of “pure vegetarianism” consider themselves to be morally superior to those who consume “unpure” products, particularly meat. This can manifest in the form of thinly veiled religious bigotry, either towards Muslims or lower castes, who are deemed lesser due to their consumption of meat.

To his credit, SVS calls out these ugly streaks in vegetarians, and the minor point about much religious activity being mere cosplay is well taken. However, his critique has other glaring blind spots, and it does not seem to be very well thought out.

I don’t have a problem with condemning meat-eating. However, the hypocrisy of “pure” vegetarians is infuriating—after all, they still consume milk and honey. Animal cruelty is not limited to consuming their flesh. Any demand for animal products sustains the supply chain that churns them out. The only truly ‘pure’ stance is complete abstention from the consumption of animal products, i.e. veganism.

“At some point the overwhelming compassion for all sentient beings makes it impossible to eat meat.”

I can excuse the moral grandstanding, but I draw the line at hypocrisy. Where is the moral condemnation of milk consumers as “less evolved” beings? Where is the “overwhelming compassion” for the cows that are forcibly impregnated, only to have their children stolen away from them? Or for the male calves, deemed “useless” at birth, and slaughtered mercilessly? Those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

“The more I think about it the more I feel that not eating meat is one step below being celibate. Extremely difficult and unless you’re a monk or a seeker, not recommended for lay people.”

Let’s leave the hypocrisy aside. There is something far more insidious here in the opening lines. Firstly, the comparison between vegetarianism and celibacy collapses with the slightest thought. One involves abstaining from a biological drive, the other involves choosing different foods at the grocery store. The analogy only works if you've never actually tried being vegetarian. Secondly, the analogy overstates the difficulty of making the switch and dissuades people on the margin from pursuing the path of peace.

Let alone the fact that sex is typically a consensual activity enjoyed by all parties involved. Does the calf enjoy being separated from its mother? Is it pleasurable to be slaughtered within weeks of birth for being born the wrong gender? Meat, dairy, and eggs involve victims, not participants.

Unlike celibacy, when you go vegan, you don’t give up anything. You just stop taking what wasn’t yours to begin with.

“The bloodlust is a form of lust and it can only be grown out of, not suppressed. Suppressing it leads to all kinds of unintended consequences.

Just like it is better for lay people to marry and have sex, it’s probably better that they eat meat as well.”

Ordering chicken wings on Swiggy is neither an expression of some primal hunting instinct nor a channel for the expression of bloodlust. It does not require spiritual fortitude to refrain from unnecessarily torturing animals, just the slightest bit of compassion, and some awareness of the production process. Habits formed out of convenience and taste are not the same as innate biological drives. It is unproductive and downright harmful to pretend as if they were.

Maybe Twitter was a mistake—we don’t need to be hearing each other’s half-baked ideas all the time.

---

Thanks for reading! I read all the comments, so share your thoughts and/or share the essay!

---