Most vegetarians who stop eating meat for ethical
reasons also take measures to avoid contributing to the
suffering and death of animals (and even insects) . For example, a number of vegetarians refuse to
wear leather and silk because they see it as an ethical
violation of their respect for all living things.

Vegetarians who refuse to wear silk argue that the process
involves unnecessary cruelty to moth larvae. Rather than
allowing the moth to grow and leave the cocoon, silk
manufacturers boil the larvae alive, causing them to suffer
and writhe, in order to obtain longer strands of silk.

Leather, by contrast, does not directly contribute to the
suffering of animals in most cases. In most cases, leather
is made from the byproducts of animals that would be
slaughtered for meat, rennet, and other animal
products.

This is precisely why many vegetarians who have an ethical
dilemma with meat have no problem wearing leather: because
they do not see it as the primary reason for killing the
animals, but instead a byproduct of the slaughter.

However, certain groups of vegans oppose wearing leather
on the grounds that it indirectly contributes to the
suffering of animals.

These vegans argue that contributing money to the companies
that own the slaughterhouses (and sell the byproducts for
leather, etc.) is just as bad as actually purchasing and
eating meat yourself because you are still contributing
money to the continuation of institutionalized animal
suffering.

This is certainly something to consider if you are
currently a vegan or a vegetarian for ethical reasons.
It may have been tough to give up meat in the first place,
but if you are truly committed to the cause and you
believe the arguments are strong-enough, you may want
to avoid clothing purchases that will aid institutions
that cause animal suffering.

If you are a prospective vegetarian for ethical reasons,
but aren’t sure whether or not a vegetarian lifestyle is
truly a more ethical choice, here are some statistics
from EarthSave to help you make your choice (for
or against):

1. Over 1.3 billion human beings could be fed each year
from the grain and soybeans that go to livestock in the
United States.

This means that the entire population of the United States
could be fed (without losing any nutritional value) and there
would still be enough food left over to feed one billion
people.

In a world where millions of people die each year of
starvation, that type of food excess and inefficiency
could be considered unethical.

2. Livestock in the US produces roughly 30 times more
excrement than human beings. While humans in the US have
complex sewage systems to collect and treat human waste,
there are no such systems on feedlots. As a result, most
of this waste leeches into water.

This means that large-scale, massive production and
slaughter of animals is not only unethical, but it also
causes serious environmental degradation.

3. It takes 7.5 pounds of protein feed to create 1 pound of
consumable hog protein; and it takes 5 pounds of protein
feed to create 1 pound of consumable chicken protein. Close
to 90% of protein from wheat and beans is lost to feed
cycling.

This means that an enormous amount of resources are
dedicated to producing wheat and soy just for the purpose
of feeding it to animals, which will be slaughtered as “a
source of protein”–even though they only provide about
1/5 of the amount they consume.

Not only can the production of meat be considered an
injustice against animals, but it can also be considered an
injustice against human beings, as well as the environment
in general.

when I received the invitation to be present at this meeting, I need not tell you how pleased I was because it revived old memories and recollections of pleasant friendships formed with vegetarians. I feel especially honoured to find on my right, Mr. Henry Salt. It was Mr. Salt,s book , A Plea for Vegetarianism,, which showed me why apart from a hereditary habit, and apart from my adherence to a vow administered to me by my mother, it was right to be a vegetarian. He showed me why it was a moral duty incumbent on vegetarians not to live upon fellow-animals. It is, therefore, a matter of additional pleasure to me that I find Mr. Salt in our midst.

I do not propose to take up your time by giving you my various experiences of vegetarianism nor do I want to tell you something of the great difficulty that faced me in London itself in remaining staunch to vegetarianism, but I would like to share with you some of the thoughts that have developed in me in connection with vegetarianism. Forty years ago I used to mix freely with vegetarians. There was at that time hardly a vegetarian restaurant in London that I had not visited. I made it a point, out of curiosity, and to study the possibilities of vegetarianism and vegetarian restaurants in London, to visit every one of them. Naturally, therefore, I came into close contact with many vegetarians. I found, at the tables, that largely the conversation turned upon food and disease. I found also that the vegetarians who were struggling to stick to their vegetarianism were finding it difficult from the health point of view.

I do not know whether, nowadays, you have those debates, but I used at that time to attend debates that were held between vegetarians and vegetarians and between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. I remember one such debate, between Dr. Densmore and the late Dr. T. R. Allinson. Then vegetarians had a habit of talking of nothing but food and nothing but disease. I feel that that is the worst way of going about the business. I notice also that it is those persons who become vegetarians because they are suffering from some disease or other , that is, from purely the health point of view , it is those persons who largely fall back. I discovered that for remaining staunch to vegetarianism a man requires a moral basis.

For me that was a great discovery in my search after truth. At an early age, in the course of my experiments, I found that a selfish basis would not serve the purpose of taking a man higher and higher along the paths of evolution. What was required. was an altruistic purpose. I found also that health was by no means the monopoly of vegetarians. I found many people having no bias one way or the other and that non-vegetarians were able to show, generally speaking, good health. I found also that several vegetarians found it impossible to remain vegetarians because they had made food a fetish and because they thought that by becoming vegetarians they could eat as much lentil, haricot, beans and cheese as they liked. Of course those people could not possibly keep their health.

Observing along these lines, I saw that a man should eat sparingly and now and then fast. No man or woman really ate sparingly or consumed just that quantity which the body requires and no more. We easily fall to prey to the temptations of the palate, and therefore when a thing tastes delicious we do not mind taking a morsel or two more. But you cannot keep health under those circumstances. Therefore I discovered that in order to keep health, no matter what you ate, it was necessary to cut down the quantity of your food, and reduce the number of meals. Become moderate; err on the side of less, rather than on the side of more. When I invite friends to share their meals with me I never press them to take anything except only what they require. On the contrary, I tell them not to take a thing if they do not want it.

What I want to bring to your notice is that vegetarians need to be tolerant if they want to convert others to vegetarianism. Adopt a little humility. We should appeal to the moral sense of the people who do not see eye to eye with us. If a vegetarian became ill, and a doctor prescribed beef tea, then I would not call him a vegetarian. A vegetarian is made of sterner stuff. Why? Because it is for the building of the spirit and not of the body. Man is more than meat. It is the spirit in man for which we are concerned. Therefore vegetarians should have that moral basis , that a man was not born a carnivorous animal, but born to live on the fruits and herbs that the earth grows. I know we must all err I would give up milk if I could, but I cannot. I have made that experiment times without number. I could not, after a serious illness, regain my strength, unless I went back to milk. That has been the tragedy of my life. But the basis of my vegetarianism is not physical, but moral. If anybody said that I should die if I did not take beef tea or mutton, even on medical advice, I would prefer death. That is the basis of my vegetarianism.

I would love to think that all of us who called ourselves vegetarians should have that basis. There were thousands of meat-eaters who did not stay meat-eaters. There must be a definite reason for our making that change in our lives, from our adopting habits and cus-toms different from society, even though sometimes that change may offend those nearest and dearest to us. Not for the world should you sacrifice a moral principle. Therefore the only basis for having a vegetarian society and proclaiming a vegetarian principle is, and must be, a moral one. I am not to tell you, as I see and wander about the world, that vegetarians, on the whole, enjoy much better health than meat-eaters. I belong to a country which is predominantly vegetarian by habit or necessity. Therefore I cannot testify that that shows much greater endurance, much greater courage, or much greater exemption from disease. Because it is a peculiar, personal thing. It requires obedience, and scrupulous obedience, to all the laws of hygiene.

Therefore, I think that what vegetarians should do is not to emphasise the physical consequences of vegetarianism, but to explore the moral consequences. While we have not yet forgotten that we share many things in common with the beast, we do not sufficiently realise there are certain things which differentiate us from the beast. Of course, we have vegetarians in the cow and the bull — which are better vegetarians than we are – but there is something much higher which calls us to vegetarianism. Therefore, I thought that, during the few minutes which I give myself the privilege of addressing you, I would just emphasise the moral basis of vegetarianism. And I would say that I have found from my own experience, and the experience of thousands of friends and companions, that they find satisfaction, so far as vegetarianism is concerned, from the moral basis they have chosen for sustaining vegetarianism. In conclusion, I thank you all for coming here and allowing me to see vegetarians face to face. I cannot say I used to meet you forty or forty-two years ago. I suppose the faces of the London Vegetarian Society have changed. There are very few members who, like Mr. Salt, can claim association with the Society extending over forty years.

Mohandas Gandhi, Speech to London Vegetarian Society 1931