Originally Posted by
Burney
Of course it's immoral. Our entire moral structure is predicated on the prioritisation of human beings. If a driver chose to swerve to avoid a dog knowing they would hit a human instead, they would be prosecuted for having made an entirely unacceptable moral decision. By the same token, if someone chooses to support the RSPCA over the NSPCC (for instance), they are guilty of exactly the same moral failure, but cannot be prosecuted for it. They are no less guilty of it, however. The same applies to those who think it's more important to take steps not to eat animals than to avoid the exploitation and suffering of their fellow human beings.
You acknowledge that our progress has gone hand-in-hand with the increased suffering of animals but fail to make the connection between the two, which seems disingenuous to say the least. Our 'progress' has relied and continues to rely on that suffering. How much human suffering are you prepared to tolerate for an end to highly-efficient (albeit morally-repugnant) factory farming? Would you be happy to price meat back out of the reach of the poor in order to achieve this? What gives you that right? How can you possibly justify such technological regression on the basis of your personal feelings?
Clearly, if a vegan believes the eating of animals to be morally wrong, the inescapable conclusion is that they believe that by not doing so, they are morally superior to those who do. They might not say that, but clearly and undeniably that is what they believe just as I believe that because I don't rape people I'm morally superior to a rapist. The sense of superiority is implicit in the action (or lack thereof).