Few days back, I was going through quotes of Leo Tolstoy when I found an interesting one regarding his views about Non Vegetarianism. I found it very close to what my views are and thus felt like sharing it. So I kept it as my Facebook Status and didn't mention the name of Tolstoy, to see the reaction of people on seeing the status as my viewpoint and not of Tolstoy (which might have held them from expressing their true thoughts).
Comments started dropping in seconds within my putting up the status. Some of them were the most common arguments given by Non Vegetarians and Vegetarians ((un)luckily I was the only Vegetarian arguing) to prove their point while some of them were different. All in all, it was an interesting conversation and included some pretty thoughtful views. So I thought why don't make it a blog post and share it with everyone.
Now I would like to add that in this conversation, I simply expressed what I think. I didn't put that status to spread Vegetarianism, neither am I posting it on my blog to spread it. I am simply sharing a debate on a very debatable topic. Nevertheless, I would be more than happy if even a single Non Vegetarian guy turns into a Vegetarian after reading this post (too optimistic that I am.. ;) ).
One more thing, I have replaced the names of the Vegetarian guys by 'V' and the Non Vegetarian ones by 'NV' just to make this post a bit more general.
The Vegeterian (referred to as 'V' hereafter)(quoting Tolstoy): "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food;
Vegetarian 1 (V 1):
Thank you! :)
V 2:
ya!!!!!!
Non Vegetarian 1 (NV 1):
Sorry Shaktimaan
But why is plant life any less valuable than animal life? :P
NV 2:
Are we not going by set rules? A plant also gets killed but just because it can't scream and dosen't pour out blood on gettin killed, it is not lifeless!
V:
@ NV1 and NV2 :Plant life is no less valuable, but plants being the second lowest in the food chain, next to sun only, are meant to be eaten by animals for survival as they are the storehouse of all the energy used by animals. Now your other argument could be that prehistoric men survived by eating animals only, to which i would say, prehistoric men also wandered naked in jungles. :P
NV 3:
As citizens of the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India, we want you banned from FB!
NV 4:
Yeah I see, what i also see is what one does is conveniently correct and what one doesn't is only immoral by natural choice.
The milk you drink comes from cows that are tethered to one place all day, milked every morning, artificially inseminated so that they give milk, just so that you can drink it as tea or bournvita. Animal slavery..for your appetite..
V:
@NV 3: Ban Tolstoy, or rather his literature, coz its he who said that. I just found it close to what I think.
@ NV 4: You've definitely got a point over there and whether you believe it or not, it hurts me when the calf is forcefully dragged away from the cow as soon as it gets the first drop of milk, to fill our buckets of milk (well i am talking about domestic way of getting milk. Dunno how they do it in dairy). But look at the other side, the cattle get way better food as compared to what they'll get if left on their own. Moreover, they are not being killed.
NV 2 again:
Keep aside the scientific facts about which type of food is better and which not, but u can't call it immoral.
Pitcher plants are animal eating plants. So there are no set rules. It is how we fulfil our needs.
V:
I never talked about what food is better, what not. Check the first line of my status. A pitcher plant has to eat animals for its survival. There is no other option available to him.
therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."
Vegetarian 1 (V 1):
Thank you! :)
V 2:
ya!!!!!!
Non Vegetarian 1 (NV 1):
Sorry Shaktimaan
But why is plant life any less valuable than animal life? :P
NV 2:
Are we not going by set rules? A plant also gets killed but just because it can't scream and dosen't pour out blood on gettin killed, it is not lifeless!
V:
@ NV1 and NV2 :Plant life is no less valuable, but plants being the second lowest in the food chain, next to sun only, are meant to be eaten by animals for survival as they are the storehouse of all the energy used by animals. Now your other argument could be that prehistoric men survived by eating animals only, to which i would say, prehistoric men also wandered naked in jungles. :P
NV 3:
As citizens of the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India, we want you banned from FB!
NV 4:
Yeah I see, what i also see is what one does is conveniently correct and what one doesn't is only immoral by natural choice.
The milk you drink comes from cows that are tethered to one place all day, milked every morning, artificially inseminated so that they give milk, just so that you can drink it as tea or bournvita. Animal slavery..for your appetite..
V:
@NV 3: Ban Tolstoy, or rather his literature, coz its he who said that. I just found it close to what I think.
@ NV 4: You've definitely got a point over there and whether you believe it or not, it hurts me when the calf is forcefully dragged away from the cow as soon as it gets the first drop of milk, to fill our buckets of milk (well i am talking about domestic way of getting milk. Dunno how they do it in dairy). But look at the other side, the cattle get way better food as compared to what they'll get if left on their own. Moreover, they are not being killed.
NV 2 again:
Keep aside the scientific facts about which type of food is better and which not, but u can't call it immoral.
Pitcher plants are animal eating plants. So there are no set rules. It is how we fulfil our needs.
V:
I never talked about what food is better, what not. Check the first line of my status. A pitcher plant has to eat animals for its survival. There is no other option available to him.
NV2:
No Sir! That's what I am saying Sir!
You just can't call it immoral.
Eating plants is not immoral, but killing animals is?
V:
You have to eat something to survive. And I am not blaming a tiger for killing and eating animals. It has to do that for its survival coz its not evolved to eat grass. But we humans "can live and be healthy without killing animals for food" and we kill and eat them just for the sake of taste. Moreover, 'morality' and' immorality' are defined by humans only and are applicable to humans only. Relate everything i said and you will know why Tolstoy (not me)
called it immoral.
NV2:
Somebody else calling it immoral doesn't make it immoral unless your logic accepts it!
V:
I am accepting it that's why I kept it as my status and that's why I am telling you what I think about it. Why else do you think would I write these long comments?
NV 5:
Won't you kill an ant if you find it in a bowl of sugay sugar, won't you try to kill a bee if it gets awfully close to you, for it though, you're just another harmless tree.I refer to Daniel Defoe in the guise of Robinson Crusoe here "Maybe those people don't consider cannibalism as a sin, just like I don't consider eating animals as a sin!".See dude it all depends on whether you consider it as a sin.
V 3
Gud thinking man. Keep doing this.
V 3
Gud thinking man. Keep doing this.
V:
@NV5: Dude, please read the status again, and especially the line "taking animal life merely for the sake of appetite". I don't know what others will do but for me, I wont kill the ant, I'll just pick it up and throw it away. But I'll kill the bee coz it can sting me. Now I'm not killing the bee for the sake of my appetite, I'm killing it coz it'll hurt me if I don't kill it.
Moreover I never used the word 'sin' coz whats sinful and what not is a topic beyond discussion.
NV 2 (back again):
Sir,for any reason, you can't call it immoral.
Morality is a very big word and it is that much hollow too!
It differs among people according to their comforts and ideology. Early humans learnt both ways of fulfilling their desire and this instinct trickled down to us.
No rule says that animal eating is Immoral just because they lie low in the food chain. These are all scientific facts which just state that what food is better. But here u have raised the question of MORALITY which i still believe to be wrong!
V:
Morality is a big word, I agree. It is hollow, I strongly disagree. And you are right that morality differs among people according to their ideology.
My status is simply my ideology which i am conveying to others. I am not saying that it should be the ideology of everyone. If anyone is in agreement with my ideology, well and good, if not, well, follow your own ideology then. And I am still emphasizing on the line "..taking animal life just for the sake of appetite.."
