So the two friends have different moral philosophies and the vegetarian is imposing hers on the other by "lecturing" her.

Imagine you are out with a friend and they suddenly mug someone at knife point. Imagine you protest and demand they return the victim's wallet, at the very least. They refuse and are annoyed by your imposing your moral philosophy on them.

Was it wrong for you to "lecture" your friend? Presumably Prudence would not think so, and this is because she believes that, unlike eating meat, mugging people is actually wrong. But of course that's just the point. Anyone who actually believes that eating meat is wrong will and should be unmoved by Prudence's lesson.

This is not to say that anyone in fact should believe that eating meat is wrong, but just that, if someone does, the claim that what they're doing is inappropriate lecturing is nonsense. The relevant comparison is not to religious taboos or addictions but to something you yourself find seriously morally objectionable. If the vegetarian is wrong to lecture, it's because she's wrong to be an (ethically motivated) vegetarian, not just because no one likes to be lectured to.

Whether lecturing is effective at converting people is completely beside the point.

You've chosen a poor analogy. Mugging people is illegal, and the fact that it is illegal reflects the widespread agreement on this point in our society (it's not, for instance, illegal in some states but legal in others). If you pull out a knife and mug someone, it's not just your uptight friend who will be imposing her moral philosophy on you - it will also be the police who arrest you, the jury that convicts you, the judge who sentences you, and the Dept. of Corrections that receives you into its waiting arms.

But eating meat isn't illegal, partly because the "wrongness" of meat-eating is still very much open to dispute. That's why lecturing people is so irritating: not because the vegetarian is right or wrong to hold the opinion she holds, but because this isn't something that we all agree on. And the analogy to religious taboos is appropriate for the same reason - there is no single religion in this country that everyone has agreed to follow.

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges here. Mugging someone at knifepoint isn't the same as eating a chicken sandwich (regardless of what PETA claims). Eating or not eating meat is a lifestyle choice. Some people find meat to be morally objectionable; some don't. Like religion, it's a personal belief that varies. Pulling a knife on someone and taking their wallet is a crime. Everyone accepts and agrees it's a crime. When eating meat becomes illegal, then you'll have a point. Until then, people have a right to follow their own dietary plan in peace.

Axon, clearly something doesn't become immoral until at least 51% of people say it's wrong. If you are in the minority, you are imposing yourself and have no justification for even the slightest sniff at the behavior of pack. You should ask yourself why you are concerning yourself with what is clearly a philosophical triviality.

Here's a hot tip for anyone questioning if something they are doing is immoral. Is it illegal? If not, you should continue doing it without thinking. Nope, stop right there, stop thinking.

Denever and jonthom11702 -- quite apart from your utterly puzzling (indeed, I would say atrocious) idea that only illegality or societal consensus makes it acceptable to urge others not to do something that you, upon serious reflection, believe is seriously immoral, your responses rather lack imagination.

Just pretend you and your friend are someplace or sometime where mugging people isn't illegal, or where there are no laws and no societal consensus at all. Or substitute some other act you believe is seriously morally wrong but that isn't illegal. Could you really accept the principle you are endorsing?

To: axon,

"Just pretend"

Just pretend YOU can limit your mental function to the actual topic at hand.
Your imagineerings have no true connection to the argument concerning the rude bitch who eats weeds.

The thing is, veganism is an ethic that respects the interests of all conscious beings (human and nonhuman) -- and except for those who believe humans can be reincarnated into nonhumans, veganism is not based on a supernatural belief. So the title, Evangelizing Vegan, is incorrect.

There's a diffrence between morality and cultural acceptance, eg. slavery didn't suddenly become immoral because the majority agreed it was wrong. It was always wrong, and neither the opinion of the majority or the law made it right.

You misstate the question:

What-her’s-name did not ask if it was wrong for the vegan to lecture, she asked if she was wrong to order meat. The answer was no, Of course the vegan can have her own opinions, and argue them forcefully. But this is a question about manners, not about the first amendment, and to demand someone order something different than what they want, and proceed to lecture them like a child is poor manners, whether their actions are analogous to a mugging or not. Just because something is rude does not make it morally wrong, just like something being legal is not necessarily morally right.

presterjohn1776:

You misstate the question:

That's a fair criticism. The primary question was indeed about the order itself, not the discussion. I took Prudence's response, particularly the "no one wants a lecture" line, to be a rebuke of the friend's "proselytizing" more than her specific demand about changing the order.

I can't download the video, so I'm trying to understand what was said. Was Prudence only concerned with manners? Imo, real friends level with each other, and sometimes it's not polite, but to say it's ok to order meat concerns more than manners.

I join meat-eating friends and family after dinner. If I'm asked why, I explain it's wrong to harm to other living beings when there are alternatives, and I acknowledge I've eaten meat for many years, as they do now.

This has worked out well. Some members of my family decided to be vegetarians, and our family Thanksgiving has become a vegan dinner. It tastes so good, no one misses eating turkey.

I'm of the opinion that any viewpoint on dietary choices can be delivered respectfully. One of the conditions that should be considered is, "Did I ask you?" I've seen my vegetarian sister-in-law (who doesn't preach to anyone who isn't genuinely interested) endure snide comments from meat-eaters. That's just as unfair as trying to make meat eaters gag. I can totally understand a person declining to join meat eaters at a restaurant when it offends his sensibilities. But graphically describing animal killing practices while I'm trying to eat is just rude. Not only will it not stop me from eating meat, it's the fastest route to me tuning that person out. Winning over a convert is largely in the approach.

I am a omnivore. My best friend is a vegetarian.

And we've gone out to eat for thirty years without a lecture on either side. I understand her position; she understands mine. If I invite her to a new restaurant, I make sure there's a vegetarian offering on the menu; if I invite her over alone, it's vegetarian. If there's family, there's a vegetarian main course with the meat course. When she cooks, it's usually vegetarian unless her in-laws are visiting. Then we have meat.

If the friend feels so strongly and is not just bullying the OP, why is she eating at that restaurant to begin with? She's patronizing a business who makes a great chicken sandwich. No matter what she ordered, she's still doing business with people who pay butchers. This is evangelizing because her religion is I am right and you are wrong.

< "....graphically describing animal killing practices while I'm trying to eat is just rude...">

I agree, and besides being rude, descriptions of how animals get killed don't speak for the vegan ethic. The vegan ethic rejects exploitation and killing no matter how it's done, because it acknowledges animal interests beyond physical comfort or pain.

These interests have been demonstrated by behavioral scientists. I don't know the "vegan" in the video, but labeling advocacy as anthropomorphism or evangelism belies these studies.

"The science is conclusive: animals are emotional beings" <link> "Six "uniquely" human traits now found in animals": <link> "Emotions high at animal farms": <link> "Mice in the Sink, On the Expression of Empathy in Animals": <link>

Reassure me that Prudence is ironic! To suggest that "you can have the glass of wine" if you're eating out with a friend who has "recovered from a drinking problem" is particularly cruel. Destructive habits [alcoholism] and religious convictions [being a Mormon] can't be lumped together in the way she did and to further your eating pleasure to the detriment of your friend's comfort or happiness is not on.

As a vegan, I would love to eat meals with friends without having to discuss or defend my choices. I find that 95% of the time my veganism becomes a topic of discussion, I'm not the one who brings it up. And trust me, vegans/vegetarians don't have a monopoly on snarky comments. I am passionate about my beliefs and I'm sure I express that when it comes to a debate, but sometimes I just want to eat in peace.