We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. — chatterbears

Can you prove this statement? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how, considering the human bodies needs, it would be possible to survive without them.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food.

You know well enough you'd be perfectly healthy being a vegan for the rest of your life, Sir, so long as your diet was varied and you got enough protein. Essential amino acids can be harvested from plants and B 12 can be synthesized (i think).

Our dominion over animals is not unethical, it is natural.
Ethics concern humans, it is created by humans for humans, and even then only about what specific humans or groups of humans agree to. It doesnt make sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of ethics, you might as well apply ethics to a rock. Non-sequitur, apples and oranges etc
Also, the way humans treat animals has nothing on the way animals treat animals. Nature is a savage, merciless and relentless wasteland of suffering and horror. Mothers and fathers eat their young, predators target the weakest or sickest, groups of animals devour thier own, wolves and many other creatures eat prey alive, mother birds throw their young to thier deaths, animals are constantly starving to death, or dying slow and painful deaths and on and on and any kind of combination of the suffering above. By human standards, the animal world is an absolute horror show. What are you gonna do about that? If you want animals to have a seat at the table of ethics then it stands to reason that we prioritize the ethical violations against them, since they inflict so much more suffering on each other than we do, how exactly do you propose we go about holding animals accountable for that?

You know well enough you'd be perfectly healthy being a vegan for the rest of your life, Sir, so long as your diet was varied and you got enough protein. Essential amino acids can be harvested from plants and B 12 can be synthesized (i think). — Nils Loc

Only for some, such a diet doesnt work with everyones system. Also, just becuase you can survive on a certain diet doesnt mean it is the healthiest, or even that healthy at all, for a person to have

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food. — Sir2u

Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin. There is no definition that states the NEED to obtain your nutrients from animals.

Sources:
- https://www.facebook.com/notes/grumpy-old-vegans/humans-have-no-need-to-consume-animal-products-to-be-healthy/544935285618383/

- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Above are sources (the google doc I created) that showcase studies which provide you with evidence that humans can thrive from a plant-based diet.

Our dominion over animals is not unethical, it is natural. — DingoJones

What's natural about rape (forced artificial insemination), torture and unnecessary slaughter?

Ethics concern humans, it is created by humans for humans, and even then only about what specific humans or groups of humans agree to. It doesn't make sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of ethics, you might as well apply ethics to a rock. Non-sequitur, apples and oranges etc — DingoJones

Is this how you define ethics? So ethics do not concern dogs, cats, etc? We wouldn't apply ethics to a rock because a rock is not sentient. We apply ethics to living beings that have the ability to suffer.

Also, the way humans treat animals has nothing on the way animals treat animals. Nature is a savage, merciless and relentless wasteland of suffering and horror. — DingoJones

So since animals do horrible things to each other in nature, that means we should as well? Should I go around and kill children since animals do it? To derive your moral standard from animals is very scary, as you would have to condone the same treatment for humans. Unless you're speciesist?

If you want animals to have a seat at the table of ethics then it stands to reason that we prioritize the ethical violations against them, since they inflict so much more suffering on each other than we do, how exactly do you propose we go about holding animals accountable for that? — DingoJones

Animals cannot evaluate their actions and analyze their ethics in the same way we can. We can analyze an action of owning people as slaves, understand why it is wrong, and then abolish slavery. Animals cannot do this, because their sole intention is to survive. They need to kill each other to survive. We do not. We are killing animals for pleasure and convenience. I assume you understand the massive difference here?

Our interaction with animals is not an ethical matter. Ethics are a social contract which animals cannot agree too. What animals DO abide by is nature, survival. That is something humans are capable of understanding, and Id go further and say that humans are already doing that. We are a part of the food chain after all. Its just incoherent, to me at least, to include them in ethics. Even if we ignore that and we focus only on what humans can do to measure animals according to our rules, woildnt we be obligated to do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals inflicted by other animals? It doesnt make sense.

What's natural about rape (forced artificial insemination), torture and unnecessary slaughter? — chatterbears

Have you made a first hand comparison of a cow being inseminated artificially with a cow being inseminated by a bull?

Given that the insemination technician is standing immediately behind the cow, he is seriously invested in keeping the cow happy so he doesn't get kicked. He clears the rectum of feces (the rectum is located on top of the vagina) and then inserts a small tube into the cow's vagina - his entire arm may be inside the cow in order to reach the cervix at this point. The sperm packet is expelled from the tube by a puff of air from the technician. That's it. Arm and tube are withdrawn.

A bull doesn't go through much more foreplay than the technician. After a little sniffing, he mounts the cow (who has to support his considerable weight), shoves his 36 inch long schlong in and gives it a few thrusts, and ejaculates, accomplishing bovine coitus. That's it. Back to chewing one's cud.

The bull's dick is about 36 inches long -- how would you like a yard-long dick shoved up your ass?

Cows are inseminated when they are in heat, and therefore receptive to penetration. If they weren't in heat, there would be no point in either the bull or the man trying to get the cow pregnant.

I don't approve of factory farming practices which subject animals to unnecessary stress, pain, or discomfort.

Crowding is a corporate strategy, not a typical historical agricultural practice. Before corporate farming took over, small farms housed maybe 30 to 45 dairy cows in a barn. Cows were kept inside mainly during the winter months. Chickens, turkeys, and other poultry were allowed to move about, and develop normally -- not being overfed. Birds like to be outside, scratching the dirt, eating whatever they find during the day; at night they prefer to be inside. Hogs do better if they are given a fair amount of space, can stay dry and warm in the winter. The rest of the year they can be outside (with shelter available). Beef cattle should also move freely, and should be raised on their natural diet -- grass. That produces healthier animals. better meat, and less methane.

In nature, most animals are slaughtered by predators. Predators are not humane; they begin eating prey animals as soon as they are no longer a threat (like by kicking). A prey animal might have to endure a couple of hours of being eaten before it finally bled to death -- depending on what the predators ate first.

An animal's death in a slaughterhouse is quick and final. What would you prefer? A natural death by being chewed on by several wolves, or a bullet in the head?

Our interaction with animals is not an ethical matter. Ethics are a social contract which animals cannot agree too. What animals DO abide by is nature, survival. That is something humans are capable of understanding, and Id go further and say that humans are already doing that. We are a part of the food chain after all. Its just incoherent, to me at least, to include them in ethics. Even if we ignore that and we focus only on what humans can do to measure animals according to our rules, wouldnt we be obligated to do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals inflicted by other animals? It doesnt make sense. — DingoJones

I can go along with your position that interactions between non-human animals are not governed by morality, and that animals are not moral agents. The trouble is that the human treatment of animals is part of the moral sphere, simply owing to their involvement in our practices. In doing things with animals we involve them in our relations with each other, and the "ethicality" of those intrahuman relations is thereby in a manner of speaking transferred on to the direct relations between humans and animals.

I think just about anything can be "included in ethics" that concerns human actions, so the human treatment of animals is or can be an ethical matter. Let's agree that animals are not moral agents. Does it follow that human actions involving them are not a matter for ethics? I don't think so. Some version of the argument from marginal cases (AMC) can be used to show this. E.g., the treatment of infants is a matter for ethics even though they might have no concept of right and wrong.

Notice that the AMC is not here being used to argue for anything so strong as animal rights, and in my opinion it doesn't even show that the exploitation of animals is wrong. What it shows is that human actions that involve beings--human, non-human, and maybe even non-living (dead bodies)--without the mental abilities we consider as normal for humans--such as the concept of self, right and wrong, and temporal self-awareness--are ethically significant, or can be.

One intuitive way to see how this is so is to observe that the cruel treatment of animals may do harm to humans. The knowledge of cruel practices, and certainly the witnessing of or taking part in those practices, may have a brutalizing effect on people. I don't want to make any argument depend on this, but it's one way to look at it.

And it seems to me quite difficult to claim that the treatment of pets is not an ethical matter, which your position implies.

Now if I'm right and it is an ethical matter, you could still argue that it is not wrong to exploit animals, perhaps by invoking the significance of species membership (which includes the so-called "marginal cases"). That is, you could argue that species membership justifies our treatment of animals, even though it doesn't justify the claim that the treatment of animals is not ethically significant at all. This would probably be something like my own position, e.g., we can eat meat without doing wrong, so long as we don't treat the animals cruelly.

By the way, @Sir2u amd @DingoJones: the omnivore argument is pretty lame. Surely people here should agree for the sake of argument with the very reasonable proposition that all people could conceivably live healthy lives without animal products? Principle of charity and all that.

This probably doesn't go any way towards answering you, but note that I should have said something like: "That is, you could argue that species membership justifies the exploitation (the use) of animals". I didn't mean to suggest an argument in which species membership justifies any treatment that is currently practised, like cruelty.

I can go along with your position that interactions between non-human animals are not governed by morality, and that animals are not moral agents.The trouble is that the human treatment of animals is part of the moral sphere, simply owing to their involvement in our practices. In doing things with animals we involve them in our relations with each other, and the "ethicality" of those intrahuman relations is thereby in a manner of speaking transferred on to the direct relations between humans and animals. — jamalrob

I think the bolded portion conflates practices of humans with human moral sphere. Ergo, you cannot sneak animals in by starting with their involvement in human practices, those practices need not be in the moral sphere.
I think that means the “transfer” isnt valid.

I think just about anything can be "included in ethics" that concerns human actions, so the human treatment of animals is or can be an ethical matter. Let's agree that animals are not moral agents. Does it follow that human actions involving them are not a matter for ethics? I don't think so. Some version of the argument from marginal cases (AMC) can be used to show this. E.g., the treatment of infants is a matter for ethics even though they might have no concept of right and wrong. — jamalrob

The case with infants is different, the infant will grow up and gain moral comprehension, the animal will not. The ethics concerning infants do not come from their temporary lack of ethical insight, but rather our moral responsibility to them as fellow human beings.
Anyway, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement, I do not think just about anything can be “included in ethics”, but if I did I would probably agree with you here.
As for pets, I dont see a relevent distinction.

The case with infants is different, the infant will grow up and gain moral comprehension — DingoJones

But take the generalized AMC. Some infants may not ever gain moral comprehension--it could be some kind of severe mental disability--and yet they would, obviously I think, remain morally significant.

Chatterbears, you need to decide which question you want to debate, the title of your post or the final question in the text. Notice that they are different, and require different answers. To the first one in the title, yes, I think our dominion over animals is ethical and positive in principle. Someday it will pay off when we fight back an alien invasion.

To the second one, no, there is no excuse for making other sentient beings, from insects to orangutans, suffer unnecessarily. Other animals can not do this, because they lack ethics; but luckily we do. We need to avoid pain and stress to other creatures when it is possible to do so. For example, when I kill an African cockroach (very invasive and nasty, like anything coming to Europe from hot Africa, I´m referring to exotic species and germs), I try to kill it quick, hopefully by stepping on it. If they are still alive, as many often happens because they are incredibly tough, I finish it off so that its agony is not longer than required. I have to kill them to protect the health of my family and pets, but I understand that I have no right to impose an undue extra pain over them when doing so.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!

It is true that agriculture and farming can be way less cruel than nature, and provide a life to farm animals and domesticated plants that is both more pleasant and more interesting in terms of evolutive success than wild life. However Karl Stone, this is a potentiality that is rarely fulfilled. Nazivegans are right in denouncing that animals are not usually well treated in farms. And they forget about animals that are poisoned and exterminated to produce vegetables, which is much worse in terms of scale of global animal suffering.

The virtue is in the middle in my opinion; to keep and protect the biological and cultural diversity and economic viability of farmlands, but giving up practices that destroy diversity and produce insane amounts of suffering. In fact, both goals are more complementary than divergent.

Regions of the world able to protect their borders from demographic invasions, can allow themselves a healthy, optimal human population, and this management of demography in its turn makes possible to direct farming to ever increasing quality and not to ever increasing quantity. Nobody wants animals that have had horrible short lives as their meal, if that can be avoided. So at least (civilized) nations with well defended borders and the resulting capacity to control demographic surge, such as China or Russia, should shift to a better relationship with our beloved farm animals and plants.

But take the generalized AMC. Some infants may not ever gain moral comprehension--it could be some kind of severe mental disability--and yet they do remain morally significant. — jamalrob

Im not sure they do, how mentally disabled are we talking about? If they cannot understand right and wrong...

I'm sure you can imagine examples. The point is to show that our actions in respect of people or babies or animals or dead bodies or psychopaths do in fact take place in a moral sphere independently of any assessment of individual criteria such as future moral comprehension. The concepts of right and wrong do in fact, in real-world communities, apply to those actions. I take you to be arguing either (1) that they should not apply, that perhaps people all over the world have made a mistake, or (2) for a meta-ethical position whereby you think that the only reason we apply the concepts of good and bad to our treatment of others is that we recognize that they are, or will be, moral agents--that they have individually satisfied some criteria (and hence that principled veganism is based on a mistaken assessment). If your position is the latter, then it seems to me that our moral concern for people with severe cognitive impairment, for the dead bodies of our loved ones, and for pet animals stand as counterexamples.

You do not treat a person well because you've established that they have the mental capacities that you deem to be requirements for morality. And if you treat a person well on that presumption, you do not suddenly treat them as morally insignificant if you later find out that they lack those capacities.

But my wider point was that ethics just is about human actions concerning the things we value. We value pet dogs and most non-psychopaths would not wish to see them tortured. This is an ethical matter despite a dog's possible lack of moral comprehension. Do you disagree?

EDIT: The even wider point is that I think you are appealing to an intuition that is close to my own view, which is about species membership and the moral sphere of human society (which includes animals, though not as moral agents). I.e., I think that individual capacities are a red herring.

A question with a view to showing that ethics is about the things we value and not merely about moral comprehension: if I destroy the Mona Lisa for no reason other than wanton destructiveness, is it a simple category mistake to call the action immoral?

It is the latter, ethical standards cannot be applied to creatures/things which cannot comprehend ethics. There may be other, practical reasons to treat these creatures or things well, or wny number of ways, but ethically isnt one of them in my view.

Your counter-examples dont hold much water, i dont think how we treat dead bodies matters ethically, and someone who is so compromised mentally (psychopaths, severly mentally disabled etc) they cannot understand ethics likewise do not matter ethically. We are free to make simple practical decisions in those cases. A bullet in the head for the psycho seems fine to me. For the severly mentally disabled, I realize that the sentimental attachments of loved ones are real and important so am happy for those loved ones to decide on the treatment etc, but I wouldnt consider it an ethical matter except where practical matters interfere with the ethical concerns of actual moral agents. Similarly, I think a pet is in the realm of sentimental attachment and emotions and should be considered in a practical way or according to the preferences of the pets owner. I still do not think it makes sense to apply ethics to creatures not capable of them.

So I think what you are left with only one counter argument here, that under my view it would be ok to torture the psychopathic, the severly retarded, or pets. I would answer that absent a practical reason to torture/harm the subject, the moral agent could only have immoral reasons for doing so. This is where I would apply the sentiments you expressed above about amoral creatures entering human moral spheres.

if I destroy the Mona Lisa for no reason... — jamalrob

Go ahead and run it through a shredder. It isn't going to last forever anyway, everybody knows what it looks like, there are billions of photos of the damned thing, and when you get right down to it, it's not something you would want hanging over your sofa. Banksy had the right idea: shredding art makes it more interesting.

There are two main sides where you could look at it from initially:

1. Deontology
Somone concerned with the intent of the action might say that if you kill an animal with good will, for example in order to sell your product and feed your family, would not be considered immoral. You raised the animals, treated them fairly, and slaughtered them with the least amount of suffering possible - which they might not even encounter in the wilderness. On the other hand, most people who point at the suffering of the animals assume that the ones doing them do it so with bad will - which is quite the assumption for such a large group of people. However, if someone has immoral or amoral intent while treating animals should be considered bad nonetheless. Which means that overall, people should be concerned with making sure that people who treat animals do so fairly and with concern for their suffering.

Here I'd like to point out that purely emotional reasons should not qualitfy on their own. One might have good intent and still feel sorry for animals killed or inseminated - even though they kill or consume animals. On the other hand, although it is true than animals have no capability of ethics, and are purely natural beings, the decision if it's a good or bad thing to kill them should not be about them at all - we need to decide how it reflects on us. Which is how we can also consider consequentialism.

2. Consequentialism

There are also claims about the consequences of not eating meat - much of which we haven't exhaustively explored as far as I know. There are three main realms: individual, economic and enviromental.

On the level of the individual you can meet the claims of health and lessening of suffering. I'd argue that we are not completely sure about the differences of consequence between vegan and omnivorous behavior. We should avoid coming to a final conclusion purely based on anecdote or correlation - although it does add to the deontological reasons against eating meat. On the other hand, there might be people who would experience a loss of well being as a consequence, increasing their suffering. Also, meat products contain a lot of things we need in a more bio avilable way - because the purely plant eating animals have a better ability to build themselves up from plants than omnivores that are able to draw on both plants and animals, but only up to a degree.

On the economic side, the meat industry allows unskilled and trade labourers to make a living. As a consequence of ban on meat eating, they might experience a serious drop in well being. On the other hand, it could be argued that they could make a living from only farming the land and producing plants. However, this would decrease the price of plants, and there would still be some people left without of jobs due to the inability for competition. Also several industries - such as fashion, food, medical etc. would experience serious changes. This step risks the loss of a lot of economic wealth.

On the side of the enviroment, animal farming draws a lot on our natural resources - plants, water, oxigen and produces co2 and methane which contribute to the greenhouse effect. They can also facilitate the spread of bacteria that might later be dangerous to humans as well. However, on the other hand the existence of these animals creates a lot of substances that could be crutial to our enviroment. The soil we would like to cultivate to grow plants is basically an amalgamation of all the dead plants and animals that ever existed. Taking out a large amount of animals and not producing more, and instead drawing more nutrients out that are needed for plants might overdraw the land too much, and we might not be able to create replenishment of the same quality to it.

I have also seen claims that "our dominion over animals is natural". This is obviously a logical fallacy, we do not completely understand what our natural behavior is. The mere fact that we can consider what is natural is supernatural. What we have to determine is how much we are able to rise above nature, and how much we are determined by it. That is where our virtue lies, and that is why this is an interesting question.

The main point here is, the killing of these animals is unnecessary. We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. We do it for pleasure and convenience. But is pleasure and convenience worth the torture and death of innocent sentient beings? — chatterbears

You've got my vote. No. Not worth it.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food. — Sir2u

Apologies, no disrespect intended, but this is a common rationalizing fantasy.

Here is a logical phallacy: The dominant farming practices today are harmful for the biosphere, therefore ALL possible farming is harmful. Obviously this is not the case, there are ways of growing plants and animals that offer a very positive externalization to the environment. That is why NASA thinks that someday terraformation of Mars could be possible.

The problem is not in farming, but in what forces farming to become as extractive as possible, and to return to the Earth as less as possible. That thing is lack of population control, especially in Africa and regions of the Middle East where leaders encourage people to have as many future emigrants as possible; and the economy based on maximizing (especially short-term) profit and calling "wealth" to "exhausting wealth produced by nature."

In a world with population control and nations that defend their borders from demographic invasions, positive farming industries would be not only possible but widespread.

Farming can not be abandoned by Man, because all those animals and plants whose mere existence depend of our agrosystems do not deserve extinctions after so many millennia feeding us; and after we have killed off their wild varieties. Not only the domesticated species are to be considered, but also the many species that need agrosystems to feed. Many national parks in the world depend on agrosystems around them to keep their diversity.

We need to control our population and greed, shift to healthy farm practices that offer positive externalizations, and try to prevent the loss of diversity in agriculture, that is huge. And we need to keep on eating our animals and plants because they are part of our family; the Homo Sapiens phenomenon has never been just a bunch of individual hominids, but also the relationships with other species.

And we need to keep on eating our animals and plants because they are part of our family; the Homo Sapiens phenomenon has never been just a bunch of individual hominids, but also the relationships with other species. — DiegoT

We need to eat animals because they are part of our family?? Ok then, I'm off to eat my wife.

Our interaction with animals is not an ethical matter. Ethics are a social contract which animals cannot agree too. — DingoJones

Is that how you define ethics? A social contract? So if there is a social contract to own humans as slaves, does that mean it is ethical and permissible? AKA, morally right? If so, that is a very destructive way to view ethics.

What animals DO abide by is nature, survival. That is something humans are capable of understanding, and Id go further and say that humans are already doing that. We are a part of the food chain after all. Its just incoherent, to me at least, to include them in ethics. — DingoJones

Wild animals live for survival. We live for convenience and pleasure. Big difference there. And our convenience and pleasure should not come at the cost of another sentient being's welfare.

Even if we ignore that and we focus only on what humans can do to measure animals according to our rules, woildnt we be obligated to do everything we can to reduce the suffering of animals inflicted by other animals? It doesnt make sense. — DingoJones

Why would we be responsible for every living being's actions, and when did I ever say or imply that? I specifically have stated that we should be responsible for our own actions, and how we treat other sentient beings. If you want to talk about social contract (which is how you define Ethics), then you should already understand this within many societies around the world. Many societies already have in place, animal cruelty laws. Which, if you harm/torture/kill a dog/cat unnecessarily, you can go to jail. And since that is a social contract within many societies, why not extend that contract out to other animals (not just dogs and cats). Why not extend that contract out to chickens, pigs, cows, etc... Since we do not need to eat animal products to survive, then it is unnecessary to kill them for our convenience and pleasure.

Have you made a first hand comparison of a cow being inseminated artificially with a cow being inseminated by a bull? — Bitter Crank

Yet, the cow is caged and unable to move to get away from a forced impregnation by the technician. At least with the bull, she is able to exercise her freedom and leave if she wants to. You really think it is the same to force impregnate a cow by hand or give her the choice to allow a bull to mount her in the wild?

I don't approve of factory farming practices which subject animals to unnecessary stress, pain, or discomfort. — Bitter Crank

Then why support what you don't approve of? Do you still buy animal products? If so, then you are directly contradicting yourself. You cannot say "I don't approve of factory farming practices", but then continue to support factory farming practices by buying their products.

In nature, most animals are slaughtered by predators. Predators are not humane; they begin eating prey animals as soon as they are no longer a threat (like by kicking). A prey animal might have to endure a couple of hours of being eaten before it finally bled to death -- depending on what the predators ate first. — Bitter Crank

Again, we are not wild predators. We are an intelligent species that is "supposed" to exercise compassion and empathy to other living beings. Also, you seem to be ignorant as to what actually goes on within factory farms. The animals there have years of pain and suffering they endure, unlike a few hours a prey may endure in the wild to a predator. Have you not watched that documentary I linked in my original post (Dominion)? You should watch it and educate yourself.

An animal's death in a slaughterhouse is quick and final. What would you prefer? A natural death by being chewed on by several wolves, or a bullet in the head? — Bitter Crank

A life without confinement, extreme mental stress, living in your own waste, unable to see the light of day, being kicked and electrocuted, have your children ripped away from you at birth.... That is a short list, but that list is far more detrimental than being eaten by wolves in the last moments of your life. You could ask yourself the same honest question.

- Would you rather live as a factory farmed pig?
- Would you rather live as a wild pig?

Pigs get their genitals mutilated without any pain medication. They also get their teeth clipped in the same way. They are said to be more intelligent than dogs, which leads to extreme mental conditions from confinement (imagine being locked in a small cage all your life). Not to mention, every animal in the factory farming industry gets their life cut short by more than double their natural lifespan in the wild. For example. A factory farmed pig will be killed after 6 months. A pig in the wild can live more than 10+ years.

Now if I'm right and it is an ethical matter, you could still argue that it is not wrong to exploit animals, perhaps by invoking the significance of species membership (which includes the so-called "marginal cases"). That is, you could argue that species membership justifies our treatment of animals, even though it doesn't justify the claim that the treatment of animals is not ethically significant at all. This would probably be something like my own position, e.g., we can eat meat without doing wrong, so long as we don't treat the animals cruelly. — jamalrob

This runs into problems when you push consistency toward your "species membership" idea. Because this is what you are saying, in a basic form.

- It is morally good for humans to kill pigs, since pigs are not a member of the human species.
- It is morally good for aliens to kill humans, since humans are not a member of the alien species.

I'd assume you disagree with the 2nd statement, since you would probably not accept it as a moral good. In fact, you would probably say it is morally wrong for aliens to kill humans, just because humans are not of the same species as the aliens. You would probably want a proper justification, instead of speciesism. Because speciesism is the same idea as racism or sexism. You are discriminating against someone else, just because they are not like you. Which is a very dangerous and destructive belief to hold.