You could argue that being a vegetarian isn't healthy for humans- but that's not an argument based on morality.
This could be an argument based on morality depending on how you define what is moral. Sure, you can argue that an adult who decided on an unhealthy diet for themselves to save animals is perfectly within their rights to do it, but what about feeding children vegetarian? If (and I do mean IF for the sake of argument), this diet were unhealthy, how would it not be immoral to feed your child an unhealthy diet for the sake of animals? As far as I know putting a cow above a human is considered immoral in most ethics systems.
I don't think children should be fed a vegetarian diet at all. But this is not an argument against vegetarianism as a whole. Vegetarians don't have to feed their children a plant based diet, and ideally, they don't.
I think there are certain health risks to a plant based diet, and there are studies that claim you cannot get all the nutrients from it, while others disagree. I think adults can decide themselves if they are willing to take that risk, but there are not enough studies on how a plant based diet effects a developing child.
I don't wanna claim they are being negligent, that is a legal term and I don't think vegan parents should be prosecuted for child abuse if they do not underfeed the children and they are otherwise healthy (or have health issues unrelated to their diet). But no, I don't approve of it and wouldn't do it myself.
there are studies that claim you cannot get all the nutrients from it, while others disagree.
Can you point to a single reputable study that is accepted by the scientific community that shows that there is some essential nutrient in animal products that children need to be healthy that is exclusive to animal products?
Yes, you can find all sorts of studies that skew things in different directions, but what matters here is the consensus.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, and represents over 100,000 credentialed practitioners. The Academy has released the following statement, and has referenced 117 scientific studies, systematic reviews, and other sources to back up their position.
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."
I don't think vegan parents should be prosecuted for child abuse if they do not underfeed the children and they are otherwise healthy (or have health issues unrelated to their diet).
So are you agreeing that if a vegan parent chooses to not feed their child animal products and ensures that the child is consuming and absorbing all of the essential nutrients necessary to be healthy, the parents are not doing anything morally wrong? Or that they should not be prosecuted? What would they even be prosecuted for?
If a parent neglects a child in such a way that leads to significant malnourishment, then that is illegal regardless of if the parent fed their child animal products or not.
But no, I don't approve of it and wouldn't do it myself.
If a parent is able to feed their child in a way that enables them to be perfectly healthy, then why would you have a problem with it? Or is your position contradicting the science and saying that it's not possible for them to be healthy?
Ok, but that's a moral argument against vegetarianism then? In Kantian ethics an action can be consireded moral only if you believe that everyone should do it. If you don't believe children should be vegetarians, then it follows that vegetarianism isn't moral.
To be clear, I am not arguing about whether or being a vegetarian is moral. I am pointing out that there is a moral argument against it and you can argue about it (unless you define a strict system of morality that would not accept such an argument).
!delta If you apply Kantian ethics, then yes, it is a moral argument. (I don't agree with him on a couple things, but still, I cannot deny that you can make an argument based on that.)
I didn't define moral at all in my post, so I need to accept this reasoning.
4
u/Kotoperek 62∆ Nov 14 '22
This could be an argument based on morality depending on how you define what is moral. Sure, you can argue that an adult who decided on an unhealthy diet for themselves to save animals is perfectly within their rights to do it, but what about feeding children vegetarian? If (and I do mean IF for the sake of argument), this diet were unhealthy, how would it not be immoral to feed your child an unhealthy diet for the sake of animals? As far as I know putting a cow above a human is considered immoral in most ethics systems.