Moral Value of Diet

Is a full vegan diet necessarily morally better than vegetarian diet, and is a vegetarian diet necessarily morally better than a pescetarian diet?

This question touches upon at least two separate issues. The first of which is the nature of the food items that one consumes in a given diet. A vegetarian diet excludes the consumption of animals, and the vegan diet excludes the consumption of eggs and dairy products. While I do know of many people who consume fish and call themselves vegetarians, I am not sure what to say about people who consume shell-fish and call themselves vegetarians. Shell-fish are animals, but in reference to many different sources of value, they are really not worth more than plants. So, a person who consumes shell-fish may technically be a pescetarian, but in most other ways is essentially a vegetarian. The same can be said about a "vegan" who consumes the eggs of an ethically-treated chicken.This, I think, means that the label of a diet is not necessarily morally better than any other label. A meat eater, if they consumed cloned meat, may have a diet that is morally on par with the diet of a vegetarian.

The second part refers to the idea that people who are vegan are necessarily more moral than those who are vegetarians, and that vegetarians are necessarily more moral than pescetarians. Is a vegetarian who must eat dairy and egg to get proper nutrients less moral than a vegan who can get those nutrients from other sources?  Is a pescetarian who must eat some animal product to get the proper nutrients less moral than a vegetarian?I would answer this, I think, with a no, provided that the individuals do everything in their power to lower their contribution to the unethical attainment of eggs and diary, or fish.. Even if they could not though, I agree with the idea that ought implies can; if a person could not sustain a vegan diet or a vegetarian diet, they should not be morally reprimanded for it.