Moral Vegetarian

You may have been led to believe it's “good” to be vegetarian. But what matters isn't what someone chooses but why they choose it. There are three things that reveal whether someone's morality is genuine.

First, it's about desire and command. There's a difference between someone who simply lacks the appetite for meat and someone who feels that desire but chooses to shape it. The first isn't virtuous — they're just harmless. They call their emptiness virtue. The second feels the desire and still decides, “I rule myself.” It's about the strength to order their drives instead of being ordered by them.

Second, it's about why the person refrains. One says, “I don't eat meat because I feel pity, guilt, or disgust.” That comes from fear — fear of life's force, fear of strength itself. It's weakness disguised as virtue. The other says, “I could eat meat and enjoy it, but I choose not to, because I command myself.” That's not fear — that's power. It's the difference between running from desire and standing above it. The first kind avoids temptation; the second masters it.

Third, it's about awareness of other arguments. Some arguments don't condemn eating meat at all — they encourage it. They see appetite and strength as natural, even admirable — expressions of life and vitality. So if a person has only ever been told that eating meat is “wrong,” their morality isn't real; it's brainwashing. They're just repeating what they've been told, like a photocopy machine.

But the one who knows that another way exists — one that praises appetite and strength — and still chooses restraint out of their own will, that person is truly moral. Because they've seen both sides, felt both pulls, and made a conscious decision.

The weak avoid meat because they must. The strong avoid it because they can. One imitates virtue. The other creates values.

Disclaimer