I found a very interesting paper on this topic. It is
not addressing the idea that so-called "ethical"
vegetarians are (or aren't) morally superior to
omnivores. Rather, it addresses (among other topics)
the idea that vegetarianism is required by our moral
superiority to non-human animals; or, perhaps, that
vegetarianism is required due to our *lack* of moral
superiority to non-human animals.

http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html

Moral superiority is another frequent claim of human
supremacy. Many meat eaters believe this claim to be
self evident. No matter how gifted one’s pig is, it
will not give its food to someone because it
believes that to be the right thing to do. Animals
may act out of loyalty or affection, but they do not
make moral decisions. When humans are able to live
to their full potential, they are capable of using
reason and acting morally, along with other things
characteristic of human beings. Moral superiority,
though, is diligently denied by some vegetarians,
who would argue that humans, although different, are
not morally superior, and cannot righteously
consume animals. In response to this frequently-used
argument, Richard Coniff has asserted that an
inherent flaw lies in the idea that humans are not
superior and therefore should not eat animals. If
one starts with the premise that humans are not
superior to animals, one has two options. Either we
are not superior to animals, and knowing this gives
us permission to eat them. Or we are not superior
animals, and knowing this gives us the moral
obligation not to eat them. At which point, we
become morally superior. Thus, the original theory
is contradicted. If we were morally equal, we would
have no qualms about eating animals, as they would
have no moral problem in consuming humans. So, by
not eating them for moral reasons we become morally
superior, in which case we are not equal, but superior.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> I found a very interesting paper on this topic. It is not addressing
> the idea that so-called "ethical" vegetarians are (or aren't) morally
> superior to omnivores. Rather, it addresses (among other topics) the
> idea that vegetarianism is required by our moral superiority to
> non-human animals; or, perhaps, that vegetarianism is required due to
> our *lack* of moral superiority to non-human animals.
>
> http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html
>
> Moral superiority is another frequent claim of human
> supremacy. Many meat eaters believe this claim to be
> self evident. No matter how gifted one’s pig is, it
> will not give its food to someone because it
> believes that to be the right thing to do. Animals
> may act out of loyalty or affection, but they do not
> make moral decisions. When humans are able to live
> to their full potential, they are capable of using
> reason and acting morally, along with other things
> characteristic of human beings. Moral superiority,
> though, is diligently denied by some vegetarians,
> who would argue that humans, although different, are
> not morally superior, and cannot righteously
> consume animals. In response to this frequently-used
> argument, Richard Coniff has asserted that an
> inherent flaw lies in the idea that humans are not
> superior and therefore should not eat animals. If
> one starts with the premise that humans are not
> superior to animals, one has two options. Either we
> are not superior to animals, and knowing this gives
> us permission to eat them. Or we are not superior
> animals, and knowing this gives us the moral
> obligation not to eat them. At which point, we
> become morally superior. Thus, the original theory
> is contradicted. If we were morally equal, we would
> have no qualms about eating animals, as they would
> have no moral problem in consuming humans. So, by
> not eating them for moral reasons we become morally
> superior, in which case we are not equal, but superior.

Great "food" for thought!

But surely that superiority comes with knowledge; you can only become
morally superior when you recognise the ability to make a choice based
on morality?

So moral superiority comes with a recognition of choice, not with
exercising that choice?

ant and dec wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> I found a very interesting paper on this topic. It is not addressing
>> the idea that so-called "ethical" vegetarians are (or aren't) morally
>> superior to omnivores. Rather, it addresses (among other topics) the
>> idea that vegetarianism is required by our moral superiority to
>> non-human animals; or, perhaps, that vegetarianism is required due to
>> our *lack* of moral superiority to non-human animals.
>>
>> http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html
>>
>> Moral superiority is another frequent claim of human
>> supremacy. Many meat eaters believe this claim to be
>> self evident. No matter how gifted one’s pig is, it
>> will not give its food to someone because it
>> believes that to be the right thing to do. Animals
>> may act out of loyalty or affection, but they do not
>> make moral decisions. When humans are able to live
>> to their full potential, they are capable of using
>> reason and acting morally, along with other things
>> characteristic of human beings. Moral superiority,
>> though, is diligently denied by some vegetarians,
>> who would argue that humans, although different, are
>> not morally superior, and cannot righteously
>> consume animals. In response to this frequently-used
>> argument, Richard Coniff has asserted that an
>> inherent flaw lies in the idea that humans are not
>> superior and therefore should not eat animals. If
>> one starts with the premise that humans are not
>> superior to animals, one has two options. Either we
>> are not superior to animals, and knowing this gives
>> us permission to eat them. Or we are not superior
>> animals, and knowing this gives us the moral
>> obligation not to eat them. At which point, we
>> become morally superior. Thus, the original theory
>> is contradicted. If we were morally equal, we would
>> have no qualms about eating animals, as they would
>> have no moral problem in consuming humans. So, by
>> not eating them for moral reasons we become morally
>> superior, in which case we are not equal, but superior.
>
>
> Great "food" for thought!
>
> But surely that superiority comes with knowledge; you can only become
> morally superior when you recognise the ability to make a choice based
> on morality?
>
> So moral superiority comes with a recognition of choice, not with
> exercising that choice?

No, I think the author's point is that it is only when
one refrains from eating animals - that is, exercising
the choice - that one exhibits moral superiority. It's
worth noting that it isn't her personal viewpoint,
rather her understanding of those who make the argument.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> ant and dec wrote:
>> Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>>> I found a very interesting paper on this topic. It is not addressing
>>> the idea that so-called "ethical" vegetarians are (or aren't) morally
>>> superior to omnivores. Rather, it addresses (among other topics) the
>>> idea that vegetarianism is required by our moral superiority to
>>> non-human animals; or, perhaps, that vegetarianism is required due to
>>> our *lack* of moral superiority to non-human animals.
>>>
>>> http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper3.html
>>>
>>> Moral superiority is another frequent claim of human
>>> supremacy. Many meat eaters believe this claim to be
>>> self evident. No matter how gifted one’s pig is, it
>>> will not give its food to someone because it
>>> believes that to be the right thing to do. Animals
>>> may act out of loyalty or affection, but they do not
>>> make moral decisions. When humans are able to live
>>> to their full potential, they are capable of using
>>> reason and acting morally, along with other things
>>> characteristic of human beings. Moral superiority,
>>> though, is diligently denied by some vegetarians,
>>> who would argue that humans, although different, are
>>> not morally superior, and cannot righteously
>>> consume animals. In response to this frequently-used
>>> argument, Richard Coniff has asserted that an
>>> inherent flaw lies in the idea that humans are not
>>> superior and therefore should not eat animals. If
>>> one starts with the premise that humans are not
>>> superior to animals, one has two options. Either we
>>> are not superior to animals, and knowing this gives
>>> us permission to eat them. Or we are not superior
>>> animals, and knowing this gives us the moral
>>> obligation not to eat them. At which point, we
>>> become morally superior. Thus, the original theory
>>> is contradicted. If we were morally equal, we would
>>> have no qualms about eating animals, as they would
>>> have no moral problem in consuming humans. So, by
>>> not eating them for moral reasons we become morally
>>> superior, in which case we are not equal, but superior.
>>
>>
>> Great "food" for thought!
>>
>> But surely that superiority comes with knowledge; you can only become
>> morally superior when you recognise the ability to make a choice based
>> on morality?
>>
>> So moral superiority comes with a recognition of choice, not with
>> exercising that choice?
>
> No, I think the author's point is that it is only when one refrains from
> eating animals - that is, exercising the choice - that one exhibits
> moral superiority. It's worth noting that it isn't her personal
> viewpoint, rather her understanding of those who make the argument.

Taking that as read; it would then seem a reasonable proposition that
*if* someone recognises the choice not to eat meat as being morally
correct, but they don't exercise that choice then they would feel moral
inferiority.