> By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own.
It's entirely possible that these products, in conjunction with a vegan diet, are better overall than a meat-eating diet with similar junk foods. The starting point is this: a generally healthier vegan diet vs. a generally less-healthy omnivorous diet.
> But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.
If the conversation of veganism vs. eating meat is centered around the cost/benefit analysis of junk-foods available to both diets, then the moral distinction between the two has already been overlooked. I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.
It's entirely possible that these products, in conjunction with a vegan diet, are better overall than a meat-eating diet with similar junk foods. The starting point is this: a generally healthier vegan diet vs. a generally less-healthy omnivorous diet.
> But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.
If the conversation of veganism vs. eating meat is centered around the cost/benefit analysis of junk-foods available to both diets, then the moral distinction between the two has already been overlooked. I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.