If it is the killing itself, then you vegans have that problem of killing life. Plants are life. — Harry Hindu

I can't take you seriously any more. Vegans care about SENTIENT living beings that can experience pain and suffering. A plant does not have a brain or a nervous system, and therefore cannot experience pain and suffering. You keep conflating things in a ridiculous manner. I cannot tell if you're trolling at this point.

Wrong. Many of us seek pain and discomfort, so pain is not necessarily bad. Making mistakes is how we learn and develop. Enduring hardships can make us better and stronger people. Then there are those that say that being born is wrong and being alive is suffering and ending your life would be good (just look at some of the other threads on this forum). This is what I mean by it being subjective. — Harry Hindu

Really? So how about you go into a factory farm, lay on the floor and let one of the workers slit your throat. They can then feed you to a cannibalistic tribe who can benefit from your corpse.

It's extremely ignorant to conflate mental hardship with physical pain. The pain I am referring to is physical pain, which is an evolutionary trait. The fight or flight response. Either way, you want to avoid pain, whether that is by running away, or fighting for your life. The rare case of people who want to end their lives is NOT what I am referring to. I was referring to an overall commonality that all living beings share. Which is to avoid pain and suffering.

I am starting to think you're a troll as well, but I hope not.

Your survival depends upon existing within a community that to a large degree fuels/feeds itself on the use of animals. — Inyenzi

Just because my community is using something that allows them to survive, doesn't mean they cannot improve it or replace it. And that's the entire point of Veganism. We do not need to factory farm animals any more. It's bad for the environment, worse for our health (than plant foods) and bad for the animals we are torturing and slaughtering. We could replace all factory farms with plant farms. And not to mention, half of the world's crops are being fed to the 50 BILLION animals we slaughter every year. All the land for those crops could be used to feed us, and there would still be a lot left over for people who are starving in poverty right now.

And if you're one of those people who denies the negative environmental factors and health issues, I'll post the google doc I created which cites well established scientific studies in these areas: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Lol, yup. Apparently Vegans have this extreme and insane position.

Yeah, it is REALLY EXTREME to not want to hurt another living creature needlessly. HOW CRAZY of a position is that, lol? The irony of most meat eaters is, they look at dog or cat abuse as immoral. But when you point out that cows/chickens/pigs should ALSO be included in that same fair treatment as the dog/cat, "WHOA YOU HAVE AN EXTREME POSITION!!"

But veganism IS cult-like. It is one thing to talk about the pragmatic health or environmental benefits. It is another to want to take over the world with an absolutist moral prescription. — apokrisis

Could you not say the same for the prohibition on slavery? That people wanted to take over the world with an absolutist moral prescription on treating human beings equally, in the same way Vegans want animals to be treated equally. And both situations are of the most basic level, to not cause harm. That is all. Apparently not wanting to cause harm to another living being when it is not necessary is an absolutist moral prescription?

I am starting to believe you're a troll at this point. So I may stop responding. You rarely even understand/comprehend my points, let alone respond to them accordingly. I'll give you one last shot.

Explain why you eat meat. And whatever justification you are using, would you also accept that same justification against yourself? Example: "I eat animals because they have less intelligence." - Would you then say it is morally justified for me to eat you if you were less intelligent? (Severely autistic or brain dead)

Either explain your position and apply consistency to your justification or I am done. I'll let someone else respond to your word salad.

Apo is clearly trolling you. He likes to disguise the vapidity and trollishness of his replies in an endless word-jumble that he'll inevitably say you don't understand anyways. — Akanthinos

I am starting to realize that at this point. He can't even clearly communicate his position without pointing to something I said or something I implied (when I clearly didn't imply it).

...so I have accepted ethical consistency as a constraint and challenged the monotonic absolutism of empathy/compassion as "pillars" - the solitary foundations of any moral position. — apokrisis

You claim to have accepted my 3 pillars while somehow still eating animals and holding a reasonable position?

Half the time you were arguing from a position you didn't even say you held. And the other half you were arguing that animals don't feel pain in a way you find reasonable enough to stop contributing to. That is a clear violation of empathy. Unless you are stating you only have empathy for humans? In which I would push your position into a consistency test. The reason you eat animals is probably not a reason you'd accept for yourself to be eaten, which makes your position contradictory/inconsistent/hypocritical. And if you would accept being eaten based on the same justification you have used to eat animals, I would say your position is absurd and/or unreasonable.

He's conflating 'moral absolutes' with 'moral consistency'. These are two different things. I have never advocated for moral absolutes, but I have advocated for moral consistency. Which means you are being logically consistent within a belief. Primarily regarding the consistency of the justification being used.

However I was addressing his initial argument that subjectively we feel compassion and empathy for sentient creatures, so as soon as we recognise sentience in a creature, ethical consistency demands a compassionate and empathetic response. — apokrisis

I have never said this. This is the problem you are confusing. Empathy, compassion and consistency are ALL SEPARATE things.

You can have 1 without the other 2. You could lack empathy, but stay consistent. You could lack consistency, but stay empathetic. I specifically stated if you have ALL 3, Veganism follows that. And I even stated, multiple times, that each person's subjective moral view is different.

And for the record, morality is subjective, in the same way health is. We first must agree on a goal, and from there we can make objective assessments. So the goal of health is to improve the body's condition. From there we can make objective assessments, based on this goal, such as "Drinking 20 sodas per day is bad for you." - This same thing applies to morality. If we agree on a goal first, we can make objective assessments. We can say, for the sake of argument, that the goal of morality (being moral) is to improve (not diminish) the well-being of sentient beings. Based on that goal, we can say "Killing someone because of their hair color, is immoral" - Killing someone [based on an unreasonable justification] will diminish the well-being of that living being. That's just a fact, and it coincides with the goal we have set.

But even without me and you agreeing on a goal, I can still lead you [within your own subjective moral perspective] to Veganism. All we would need is ethical/moral consistency. And of course, if you really want to, you could reject 'consistency' all together, in which your views about morality become unworthy of consideration. If you don't care to be consistent in your beliefs, then that is a big problem. If we go back to the health scenario, it would be the same as someone being inconsistent in their health beliefs. Someone could say, "It's bad for my daughter to drink so much soda." - Yet this same person will act inconsistently by drinking just as much soda (if not more) than her daughter. This is called hypocritical / contradictory / inconsistent. I use the word 'inconsistent' because it conveys the idea better.

You are conflating self-defense (something that is necessary for survival) and eating meat (something that is NOT necessary for survival). You cannot claim that eating meat is a form of self-defense, when it is not necessary for your survival (we have plant-based alternatives). I said that self-defense is justifiable when you are put in a situation of immediate threat to your health, like being attacked by a human or animal (lion, bear, etc.). This situation is not comparable to that of eating meat. There is no threat if you do not eat meat, since you can eat other foods that will replace the need to eat meat. Again, plant-based foods will replace the need to eat meat. In regards to your diet, you have an alternative to sustain your health (meat vs plants). In regards to an animal or human attacking you, there is NO other alternative to sustain your health, other than fighting back.

So again, what is your counter-argument that you want me to address? I am not going to go through every aspect of your response because I want this to be very clear.

Name the exact counter-argument, give an example for it, and I will address it.

For anyone who cares about scientific journals, I have created a Google DOC with links to each supporting scientific research article.

Plant-Based Research Google DOC

I applaud your dogmatism. — jastopher

lol. I think you should stop trying with Michael. If he can't understand how supply and demand works, I don't know what to tell you.

Thank you!

How can an exception be justified if it has no grounds? — apokrisis

The grounds of the exception are imposed diminished well-being, which I already explained, but apparently you didn't read.

Sure fine. But your dependence on subjectivity and absolutism leaves you open to the counter-position that veganism is all too much effort for me, I really like the taste of meat. And I only feel my own pain or suffering. I don't actually experience that of any animal involved. So the primary duty of care remains the servicing of my own selfish wishes here. — apokrisis

In the same way you claim that Veganism is too much effort for you, I could claim that a slave owner could use the same justification. Imagine talking to a slave owner, telling him to stop owning slaves, and his response was "It is too much effort to stop owning slaves. And I really like the pleasure of owning them". This reasoning is flawed and doesn't even work when you use it against yourself.

And the slave owner continues, as you have, and says, "I only feel my own pain or suffering. I don't actually experience that of any slave involved. So the primary duty of care remains the servicing of my own selfish wishes here."

I'm not saying I would take that unbalanced view personally. I'm saying it is equally valid given your subjectivity and absolutism. — apokrisis

You keep going back to my subjectivity and absolutism. Where is my subjectivity and absolutism being deployed? As I said before, my views/perception are completely irrelevant here. We can use your beliefs specifically, and it would still lead to Veganism, unless you're willing to bite the bullet on some absurd positions. I'd like you to tell me why you believe that eating animals is justified, without pointing to what you think my view is. Especially when you keep getting my view wrong.

So again, tell me what is YOUR reason for why you are justified in eating meat. Don't refer to anything I believe for a second, as that is irrelevant to why you are justified in doing something.

I eat meat because I don't have a strong enough reason not to. I believe that lot of ethical choices do frankly fall into a gray area where there is nothing terribly significant at stake. I see ethics as a pragmatic work in progress and there are many cultural habits to be working on. — apokrisis

You eat meat because you don't have a strong enough reason not to? How about causing needless suffering and pain to animals? Or global warming concerns? Or the fact that plant based foods are actually healthier than animal products? It seems that you just haven't done the research, or are being willfully ignorant on this topic, if you haven't found a good reason to stop eating animals.

If that were customary in my society, then I'm sure I'd be quite use to the practice and wouldn't have a strong objection. — apokrisis

Morality based on social norms is flawed, as we have had terrible norms in the past, such as slavery. So I am not sure of your point here?

Does eating autistics achieve some reasonable goal? What are the actual pros and cons. Any ideas? — apokrisis

Eating autistics is similar to eating animals. There is no NEED for the consumption of either of these living beings. Plant based foods, which cause no pain or suffering and are better for the environment, are a much better option than animals or autistics. That's the point.

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it "wrong"/"bad" to eat animals? — Harry Hindu

You are confusing two points here. You stated that a lion doesn't understand the concept of right and wrong, AKA good or bad. But we, as humans, DO understand that concept. So a lion perceives pain as something it wants to avoid. We label that same perception as BAD/WRONG if we inflict that pain onto another. A lion does not understand that to the same extent we do.

What does it even mean to say that "humans have a higher capacity for moral value"? Humans have the capacity to put themselves in others' shoes. We think that other people and animals think and want the same things we do. They don't. So all you are doing is applying your own rules to others. As I told you before, morals and ethics are subjective and are not applicable across the board in every situation for every organism. — Harry Hindu

Humans have a higher intelligence level, and therefore can understand morals/ethics on a higher level. And the only thing I have applied to humans and animals that is universal, is that we ALL want to avoid pain and suffering. Every other moral dilemma or quality can be viewed as subjective, but the will to live and the goal to avoid pain, is universal. And we can build a moral system just off that foundation alone. If we all want to avoid pain and suffering, to cause NEEDLESS pain and suffering would be wrong. And by NEEDLESS, I am referring to pain that didn't need to be caused because there is an alternative. For example, we don't need to factory farm animals, because we have an alternative of a plant-based diet. Therefore, since it is not NEEDED in the same way a lion NEEDS to hunt an animal to survive, our actions have become immoral. Especially when you self-reflect on why you want to farm animals, most of it comes down to taste pleasure/convenience/cultural norms/etc... All reasons which are not valid or consistent within your own ethical views.

Also, to you and anyone else. I am willing to have a debate/discussion about this over voice (discord) if you would like. Not sure how PM'ing works, or if I would just link my discord here in this thread.

Why would self-defence ever be morally justified? What is the general idea you were after there? How is eating meat not a legitimate form of "self-defence" against the perils of being a starving meat-eater? — apokrisis

My position is, the consideration/improvement of the well-being of sentient beings. Clearly if I am being attacked, my well-being is being diminished, and self-defense still aligns with this foundation. Someone else is trying to diminish my well-being, while I try to retain/improve it. Therefore it is morally justified to sustain well-being to the highest degree possible, which follows in self-defense. This is still completely consistent, and does not contradict my justification/reasoning for my moral actions. (Unlike people who based moral actions on 'taste' or 'lower intelligence level'.)

Eating meat BEFORE we did not have alternatives, could be viewed as self-defense. Since not eating would diminish your well-being. Right now, we have access to plant-based foods. Nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, beans, rice, pasta, etc... And changing your diet is not that difficult, as it just takes a small amount of research. And in doing so, you would be avoiding contributing to the pain and suffering caused by animal agriculture.

Also, to clear up your point of "if exceptions are justified, then your argument has already shot itself in the foot." - This is false. Exceptions of the situation are justification, not the justification itself. When deploying a justification to use as a basis for committing a moral action, that justification has no exceptions. These are two different statements:

1. It is wrong to kill
- There can be exceptions to this. As self-defense, as I already explained, is an exception.

2. It is wrong to kill based on hair color.
- This is where there are no exceptions, on the basis of hair color. If someone believes it is wrong to kill based on hair color, we can deploy "hair color" in another context, and they should always (consistently) believe it is wrong. Meaning, we could change the scenario to, "It is wrong to slap someone in the face based on hair color". That person would still need to accept that it is wrong, because the same justification is being used. This is the part you seem to be confusing.

There is a moral situation #1 (wrong to kill). And a moral justification #2 (wrong to kill because of hair color). These are two separate things. #1 can have exceptions (depending on your basis for morality). But #2 cannot have exceptions, as we test the consistency of the justification "hair color" as a basis for why it is wrong to do something.

You claim I am using logic tricks, similar to that of cults and religions, yet you aren't pointing to anything tangible. And to prove my point to you, we could start from the beginning.

Why do you eat meat? You may deploy the same justifications as others have used, such as: Comfort, convenience, cost, effort, species difference, intelligence difference, cultural norms, etc.

If you use a reason to justify your action of eating meat, you would need to deploy that same justification in another context for you to be consistent in your ethics. So if your answer was, "I eat meat because animals are less intelligent". You are justifying meat eating with intelligence level. So to be consistent, would you then say it is OK to eat a severely autistic human, because they are less intelligent? If not, then it is clear that using "intelligence level" as a justification is not valid, and you do not even accept it within your own ethics as a justification to use against you.

Empathy, compassion and consistency are not necessary. But if you do care about those three things, and hold true to them, Veganism logically follows.

But even without empathy or compassion for other animals, consistency would STILL lead to Veganism. Because you cannot justify your actions in one context, while rejecting them in another. Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself and hold two opposing views simultaneously. This is why, my ethical standpoint doesn't necessarily even matter at all. I am not arguing for absolutism or anything of the sort.

I never claimed that I hold to the position of moral absolutes, nor do I think this is the case. Because there are cases, such as self-defense, where killing something is justified. Therefore, this is an obvious case where "killing is always wrong" does not apply.

The 'absolute' portion you may be confusing, is the logical consistency portion of each person's justifications. To be a moral agent, you would need to exercise reason and critical thought to come to consistent ethical positions. I've used this formula before, but I'll use it again here:

Subject A believes X based on Y.
Humans (Subject A) believe eating animals is OK (X) based on difference of intelligence level ( Y ).

The 'Difference of intelligence level' is the justification the person would be using to justify their action of eating animals. For that person to be consistent, you would need to change the context, but keep the same justification applied. So it would go like this:

Humans believe eating animals is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Humans believe eating mentally handicapped humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Aliens believe eating humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.

All three of these scenarios are using the same justification, which is "difference of intelligence level". To be consistent in your justification, you would need to accept all 3 of these scenarios, otherwise you'd hold a contradictory view. And to clarify again, this is from the person's own subjective ethical beliefs. This is completely separate from the justifications I would use for my actions. I can lead people to Veganism from their OWN subjective personal ethics. Which is why I ask people (and you can answer this for yourself), why do you eat meat? And whatever that reason is, if that trait was present in you, would you still accept it? Most people say no, which creates an inconsistent position.

No, I don't think so, because I can point to a distinct set of circumstances, and others can relate to and identify with my position. — Sapientia

What are the distinct set of circumstances? A slave owner could point to a set of circumstances, as well as have others that can relate and indentify with the slave owner’s position.

I can know that there's something wrong about standing by doing nothing whilst a house begins to burn with a baby trapped inside, even if I wasn't able to put my finger on it. — Sapientia

It depends on what your moral foundation is based upon. And if you have no foundation you can point to, then you are basically incapable of discerning right from wrong. Because I base my morality on improving the well-being of sentient beings. If it was possible for me to save a baby from a burning house, without putting myself at great risk, it would be wrong for me to not save the baby, because I would be allowing the baby to have a diminished well-being. If my goal is to improve/consider the well-being of sentient beings, saving the baby would be in my framework.

It all depends on the risk factor. Saving a baby from a burning house is of high risk. And I wouldn’t say it is wrong for someone to not save a baby if their own life was at great risk. But if they were at a low (or nonexistent) risk, then it would be wrong. Similarly, you aren’t at any risk to stop eat animals. All you need to do is switch your diet.

If someone thinks that it's okay to eat chicken, and not to eat human, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to eat humans under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a chicken in all but name. — Sapientia

This is the main problem here. It is like saying, "If someone thinks that it's okay to enslave black people, and not to enslave white people, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to enslave white people under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a black person in all but name."

This is an absurd position to hold. Whether you substitute slavery with eating a living being, is irrelevant. If you cannot put your finger on why you are justifying one action but not another, you're position on ethics is unreasonable, incoherent and borderline sociopathic.

What makes you think that you can reasonably break up my conditions and assess each of them in isolation? That's not how I answered the question. If all of those conditions were met, then I would have no qualms. — Sapientia

Because you can't just throw in a bunch of random reasons together and think you have a coherent or reasonable argument. A bunch of bad reasons, when put together, doesn't suddenly become a collectively good reason. If each of your reasons can be broken down and become problematic, the argument fails. Imagine someone trying to condone slavery.

'Slavery is morally correct if it meets this criteria: The enslaved person needs have green eyes, black hair, somewhat of a lower IQ, has a different skin color than me and acts differently than me.'

All of those reasons for why slavery should be permitted, do not suddenly become reasonable when you put them all together. You'd have to assess each reason and see if it is a valid justification to cause harm to another living being. Having green eyes shouldn't justify causing harm, and neither should the hair or skin color. Now apply the same logic to your justifications for why you can cause harm to animals. Just because you have a plethora of reasons, doesn't mean each reason is valid, and doesn't mean all reasons combined suddenly become one valid argument.

I'm only saying that I am OK with eating pigs but not humans, and that the difference in intelligence of these species seems to be the trait that best explains why I feel the way I do. — Michael

Then you need to be willing to bite the bullet on humans who have the same intelligence as a pig. If not, you are being inconsistent in deploying your justification of "intelligence".

Michael is OK eating animals because they have a lower level of intelligence.
Michael is not OK eating mentally handicapped humans because they have a lower level of intelligence.

I think the contradiction is clear. You may want to clarify your position here.

Well, if there were a human who had the same level of intelligence as a chicken, who looked and acted just like a chicken, had the same kind of flesh as a chicken, and was to all intents and purposes treated just like a chicken on a farm, then I would have no qualms with eating a human burger made from this human. — Sapientia

Ok, now you just went to justification overload. Here are your justifications:

1. Intelligence level.
2. How one 'looks'
3. How one 'acts'
4. Difference in 'flesh'

Again let's take them one by one and deploy a consistency push to them. Intelligence level, we can already throw out, because you don't accept humans (who are of lower intelligence) to be farmed.

#2 - How one looks. Is it OK to farm something just because it "looks" different? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that.

#3. How one 'acts'. Is it OK to farm something just because it "acts" different? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that one as well.

#4. Difference in flesh. Is it OK to farm something just because their flesh is different than ours? I assume your answer is No, so we can discard that one too. But just in case your answer is Yes. Would you be OK with an Alien species farming you, just because your flesh is different than theirs? No. So we can discard that reasoning.

You're again, left with 0 valid/consistent justifications to use for why you can farm animals but not humans.

And in hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have humoured you when you told me to name the trait, as if there were only a single reason why it's considered acceptable to farm chickens, but not humans. If not intellectual capacity, at least in the case of those humans who it is claimed have an intellectual capacity of an equivalent level to that of a chicken, then it must be some other reason, or some additional reason or reasons. — Sapientia

Meat eaters have a plethora of reasons, but you must take each reason one by one and deploy an ethical consistency push. Because if each reason breaks down and is not consistent or valid, then we can discard it and move on to your next reason.

So it seems you concede the point that using the justification of "intellectual capacity" to farm a living being (human or chicken), is not valid nor consistent. Because again, if there was a human who lacked "intellectual capacity" in the same way the chicken does, is it now OK to farm the human? No. And you haven't actually came out to finally bite the bullet on that point, but instead tip toe around minor details.

So do you have another justification for why we can farm a chicken but not a human?

Are you really making an equivalence between the severely autistic or mentally disabled and chickens? — Sapientia

Yes, because it is clear that some humans have the same capacity for thought as other animals. Is this the bullet I was supposed to bite? Yet, it’s just a fact. Some humans are not capable of a higher intellectual thought, and therefore would be on the same level (intelligence wise) as a chicken/pig/cow.

So again, are you going to bite the bullet on your inconsistent position? Stating that “advanced intelligence capacity” is not present in chickens, therefore we can kill them, should also follow that we can kill someone humans who also don’t have “advanced intelligence capacity “. Otherwise, you’d be contradicting yourself and would have an inconsistent position within your own subjective ethics. And as I said before, consistency matters, otherwise you’d have arbitrary lines drawn that are based on nothing other than what you feel is right or wrong.

If you don’t have an ethically consistent justification for your actions, then your justification is just arbitrary and useless.

The justification you used was “advanced intellectual capacity”. If this capacity was not present in a human, would it then be ok to factory farm that human? If not, then you’re being inconsistent, or there is some other trait that matters more than “advanced intellectual capacity”. In which case, if there’s a better trait than that, then use it. But it’s obvious you are unwilling to stay consistent with your first justification, which makes it invalid. So do you have another?

What justifies farming a chicken but not a human? And if that trait is present in the human, would it then be ok to farm the human? (This is basic consistency within ethical frameworks)

I actually did say that already. You can go back and read it.

Advanced intellectual capacity. — Sapientia

So if a human did not have this capacity, such as in a severely autistic or mentally disable person, would it then be ok to farm them? If not, youre being inconsistent in your ethics.

Frank already explained this, and I have tried many times already. Not sure how to keep explaining this, as I thought it was fairly simple.

Because ethics isn't the be-all and end-all. — Sapientia

Not sure how this is relevant? My point was, if you can avoid causing suffering by making a simple change (moving to a plant based diet), why wouldn't you do that? Especially already acknowledging that you have an inconsistent and immoral position.

To pretend that all of human societies are inherently immoral because the eat meat, is wrong and I think it is a form of intellectual elitism. — Cavacava

It isn't about inherently immoral. It is about ethical consistency. You'd have to explain why an animal is deserving of slaughter and a human is not. And if that trait is present in the human, is it now OK to slaughter the human?

If you think reason & logic are the sole constituents of moral behavior then I think you have an impoverished view of morality which is evident in the elitist position you are trying to maintain. — Cavacava

Reason and logic are a part of it. The rest is empathy and compassion, which I stated in my original post here. You still have not made the case for why "taste" should be a valid justification to slaughter animals? And if a human used the same justification of "taste" to slaughter humans, would you accept that as valid? If not, you're inconsistent in your own subjective ethics.

that morality should be based on something other than a capacity for pain. — MetaphysicsNow

I'd have to know the position here. What is the "something other than" that you're referring to?

but it's fine to farm chickens, and it's not fine to farm humans. — Sapientia

Why is it OK to farm chickens but not OK to farm humans? Name the trait.

you kinda need to establish that eating meat is intrinsically wrong — Buxtebuddha

I don't think eating meat is intrinsically wrong though. Just like I don't think eating human flesh is intrinsically wrong. They can go to taste, then I'll just throw a consistency test at them. Which fails at its core.

But if someone challenges the idea that capactity for pain is morally relevant, how do you respond? — MetaphysicsNow

Tell them to use that logic on themselves. If a human suddenly loses the capacity for pain, should we be justified in killing them? Same with animals. Cows/chickens/pigs all have the capacity for pain, but if one suddenly loses its capacity for pain, does that make it justified to kill them? No.

Sentience encompasses the capacity for pain, so they go hand in hand.

Whereas harm is avoided if I don't own you as a slave. — Michael

Not sure what to tell you, because it is very simple.

You are paying for an animal to be killed. That is directly causing harm to animals. Also, by paying for this animal to be killed, you are supporting the factory farming industry, which causes more harm to the environment. It is the same as driving a car. If you drive a car (that is not electric), you are causing direct harm to the environment. But if you stop driving a car, you avoid causing harm to the environment. If you stop eating meat, you avoid causing harm to an animal, as well as causing harm to the environment. Irrespective of whether you stop driving cars or eating meat, other people will still drive cars and eat meat. But the fact that YOU stopped, means that the overall contribution to the harm has lessened. And the more and more people who do this, the less and less the contribution is. Not sure how to make myself any more clear than this.

A system of morality does not require being based on whether the objects of moral concern feel pain or not. — MetaphysicsNow

It's not just about pain. My moral foundation is specifically in reference to sentient beings. That we care about the well-being of sentient creatures. This is separate from whether or not they can feel pain (on a case by case basis).

I too value human life over animal life, however unlike your position I don't believe animals have rights simpliciter, rather their rights are given to them by us. — Cavacava

It is part of basic universal rights. The right to live free from pain and suffering. We call this universal human rights, which are granted at birth. The same rights should be granted to animals, and you'd have to present an argument for why that shouldn't be the case. Because anything that can feel pain and suffering and has a will to live, should be granted basic rights. Such as, the right to not be killed.

The aesthetic pleasure of eating a 2 inch well cooked and spiced steak, goes beyon logic and reason. Human activities of this sort and many other sorts can't be circumscribed by logic and reason. — Cavacava

To state that your position is free from logic and reason, just puts you at odds with ethical consistency. Jeffrey Dahmer could say, "The pleasure of eating 2 inch well cooked and spiced human flesh, goes beyond logic and reason." - Yet we would push him for ethical consistency in the same way I am pushing you. If you are basing your actions on a justification such as "It tastes good" or "I like it", you can justify almost any action with that criteria. Which makes your moral foundation vastly inferior to many others.

You don't recognise a will to live, you project it. And they have no rights, except those assigned to them. — Sapientia

If I hold a pigs head over a flame, will the pig not squirm and do everything in its power to get away from the flame? Meaning, it has a will to live and will avoid pain if possible. And if I observe the pig's actions, that is me recognizing the pig's will to live. And their will to live is part of universal animal rights. We call it human rights, but I extend it to all animals.

Funnily enough, I'm not as empathic or compassionate towards a chicken kept in a small cage as I am towards a human kept in a small cage. — Sapientia

But despite which one you are more empathetic towards, do you think both do not deserve to be in that cage? And do you think both deserve the right to live a life free from pain and suffering?