This is clearly incorrect.I have no idea how much meat you eat, but if over the course of a year you ate the equivalent of 1 steer, 2 pigs, and 20 chickens then you are responsible for the death of those animals. That's just the way it is. — jastopher

How so? I didn't kill them. I didn't pay for them to be killed. They were already dead before I bought them.

You would have to show that those animals were killed because I bought their meat. And that, I think, is wrong. My contribution is so negligible as to have no affect on the number of animals killed. My purchases are not responsible for any deaths.

But even then, let's consider this hypothetical situation: I promise to pay you £100 if you kill a cow for me. You kill the cow. I refuse to pay you £100. Who is responsible for the death of the cow? I say you, not me. And the responsibility remains yours even if I were to change my mind and pay you. At most I can be held responsible for the solicitation of a killing, but certainly not for the killing itself.

Although in the real life example of buying meat, I haven't even promised to pay for the killing of a cow. Rather the people who kill the cow do so on the presumption that I will pay them. In such a case, I can't even be held responsible for solicitation, which makes the case that I am responsible for the killing even weaker.

The same argument goes for humans; natural causes, probably not a great idea. Accident; why not? Many cultures and individuals have consumed human flesh. The reason we don't eat victims of accidents is convention and learned disgust. Nevertheless, we have have no problem in using their organs, which, although not eating, is a form of consumption that could, at a stretch, be argued to be cannibalism that bypasses the alimentary canal.

A reason I don't consume human flesh from accidents is the same as why I will not eat a boiled egg; it disgusts me. Nevertheless, this does not imply that it is unethical.

Then that negates @NKBJ's ridicule of @Sapientia's claim that it can be acceptable to eat a human burger.

So either there's nothing wrong with eating a human burger or there is some (currently unspecified) difference between cows and humans such that it is acceptable to eat cow burgers but not burgers made from humans who have the mental capacity of a cow. Either way, the reductio ad absurdum against Sapientia fails.

Me buying meat doesn't kill or harm animals, either directly or indirectly (given that my individual contribution isn't sufficient enough to have an affect on the amount of harm done or number of animals killed). — Michael

Yes it does. When you buy a product, you are paying for all of the services that went into making that product the way it is. In the case of a chair, that means craftsmanship, and in the case of meat, it means slaughter.
Perhaps one single person's contribution is but a drop in the bucket, but you can't use that as excuse to take part in something immoral. In part because this system exists due to the sum of single persons contributing to it, and in part because the fact that I can't stop x doesn't mean I should take part in, condone, or in anyway support x.
Unless you are a hunter, eating meat implies buying meat. Unless you only eat dead animals you happen to find, which then, be my guest (I mean, ewww, but be my guest). But that really goes without saying.

That's just speculation. You have no way of knowing that outward behaviour is indicative of an inner subjective state (or that any inner subjective state is similar enough to your inner subjective state that you are capable of empathy). — Michael

Actually, I do have ample evidence to suggest it is. Evolutionary theory, ethology, and what we know of animal biology (nervous systems, brain structures, etc) all tell us that this is the case... you on the other hand have no evidence to suggest it is not the same. As such, the only rational thing to do is to assume that it is the case.

This is a non sequitur. Hypocrisy doesn't show that it's wrong to kill cows for food. It could be that it's acceptable to kill cats for food, too. All this shows is that given our particular culture (remember that some cultures eat those animals, too) we have a stronger emotional attachment to these animals. — Michael

Like I said, we have evidence to back up the conclusion that animals suffer in a significant way. And it's not a non sequitur, since if I'm right, hypocrisy would point to the wrongness of hurting all animals.

We've already established that there's nothing wrong with eating a cow burger. Your issue has been with killing and harming animals. So, presumably, eating a cow that has died naturally is morally acceptable? But then what of eating a human that has died naturally? Many people might say that that would be unacceptable. The above suggests that you agree? If so then there is some other reason – unrelated to the immorality of harming and killing things which can suffer – for eating a human to be unacceptable, and this other thing can explain the difference between a cow and a mentally disabled person, and so we can avoid the reductio ad absurdum against Sapientia's position regarding intelligence as a measure. — Michael

Eating a naturally dead cow or human would be gross. And there may be an Aristotelian/Kantian argument to be made you shouldn't even be engaging in behavior like that because it sets a bad precedent. However, since in our current reality eating burgers implies the killing (and overwhelmingly also the lifelong torture) of an animal, cow and human burger eating are both wrong.

Then that negates NKBJ's ridicule of @Sapientia's claim that it can be acceptable to eat a human burger. — Michael

I'm not trying to actively ridicule anyone as much as I am pointing out the ridiculous conclusions some people try to defend when it's about animal rights.

Yes it does. When you buy a product, you are paying for all of the services that went into making that product the way it is. In the case of a chair, that means craftsmanship, and in the case of meat, it means slaughter. — NKBJ

Your use of the term "paying for" is misleading. I exchange my money for some meat at a supermarket. That's the extent of my involvement. That the supermarket then uses some of that money to cover their costs of purchasing that meat from farmers who in turn kill animals for that meat is not any of my responsibility.

Perhaps one single person's contribution is but a drop in the bucket, but you can't use that as excuse to take part in something immoral. In part because this system exists due to the sum of single persons contributing to it, and in part because the fact that I can't stop x doesn't mean I should take part in, condone, or in anyway support x.

You're changing your reasoning. You said that me eating meat (or rather buying meat) is responsible for those deaths, and so is wrong. Now you're just saying that it's wrong to support an industry that kills animals. That's a different argument altogether.

Actually, I do have ample evidence to suggest it is. Evolutionary theory, ethology, and what we know of animal biology (nervous systems, brain structures, etc) all tell us that this is the case... you on the other hand have no evidence to suggest it is not the same. As such, the only rational thing to do is to assume that it is the case.

How does animal biology and evolutionary theory show that there's something it's like to be an animal (to use Nagel's phrasing)?

And it's not a non sequitur, since if I'm right, hypocrisy would point to the wrongness of hurting all animals.

Not it doesn't. Hypocrisy just points to people being inconsistent in their opinions on whether or not animals suffer. It doesn't then follow that all animals suffer. It could be that no animals suffer, and we're wrong to think that cats and dogs do. It could be that some animals suffer and some don't, but we're wrong iabout which animals do.

I don't know why you think that hypocritical human behaviour provides us with information about non-human consciousness.

Eating a naturally dead cow or human would be gross. And there may be an Aristotelian/Kantian argument to be made you shouldn't even be engaging in behavior like that because it sets a bad precedent. However, since in our current reality eating burgers implies the killing (and overwhelmingly also the lifelong torture) of an animal, cow and human burger eating are both wrong.

Again, it's not the eating that's wrong. It's the killing that's (supposedly) wrong. The problem is that you haven't shown a sufficient connection between the two to warrant blaming those who eat meat for those killings.

I'm not trying to actively ridicule anyone as much as I am pointing out the ridiculous conclusions some people try to defend when it's about animal rights. — NKBJ

It's not ridiculous if it's true that eating human meat isn't unethical, and you agreed that it isn't.

How so? I didn't kill them. I didn't pay for them to be killed. They were already dead before I bought them.

You would have to show that those animals were killed because I bought their meat. And that, I think, is wrong. — Michael

This is word-play. Remove 'those' and change 'bought' to 'buy', and I'll happily attempt a rebuttal.

My contribution is so negligible as to have no affect on the number of animals killed.

'Negligible' and 'no effect' are not the same. The sum of many negligible effects is more than negligible whereas the sum of no effects is no effect. You need to clarify.

But even then, let's consider this hypothetical situation: I promise to pay you £100 if you kill a cow for me. You kill the cow. I refuse to pay you £100. Who is responsible for the death of the cow? I say you, not me. And the responsibility remains yours even if I were to change my mind and pay you. At most I can be held responsible for the solicitation of a killing, but certainly not for the killing itself. — Michael

Why not both of us?

'Negligible' and 'no effect' are not the same. The sum of many negligible effects is more than negligible whereas the sum of no effects is no effect. You need to clarify. — jastopher

"Negligible" refers to the amount of money I have contributed. "No effect" refers to the number of animals killed. The negligible amount of money I have contributed has no affect on the number of animals killed.

This is word-play. Remove 'those' and change 'bought' to 'buy', and I'll happily attempt a rebuttal.

You said that I am responsible for the deaths of the 20 chickens I bought. I'm not. I didn't kill them. I didn't even solicit someone else to kill them. I just purchased already dead chickens from the supermarket.

Why not both of us?

Because I'm not responsible for your behaviour. I may have solicited your service, but you are a free agent who makes his own decisions. All the responsibility of your actions rests on your shoulders.

The negligible amount of money I have contributed has no affect on the number of animals killed. — Michael

I'm repeating myself, but, unless I'm missing something, your participation in a market for dead animal products clearly does have an effect on the number of animals killed.

Or are you claiming that there is fixed amount of meat produced, whether or not there is demand (including yours) for it. If this is the case, then I think the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders since it goes against everything we know about how markets function.

You said that I am responsible for the deaths of the 20 chickens I bought. I'm not. I didn't kill them. I didn't even solicit someone else to kill them. I just purchased already dead chickens from the supermarket. — Michael

I did indeed, but I didn't say that you and only you are responsible. You share the responsibility by exercising your autonomy as a consumer in market that responds to consumer demand. Presumably, you know that your demand for chicken stimulates a response in the supply chain. If you buy a dead chicken then the space on the supermarket shelf will necessitate the killing of another chicken. Your purchase of an already killed chicken directly precipitates the killing of another chicken.

Look, I respect your intellectual agility, but I doubt that even you are convinced by your arguments.

Or are you claiming that there is fixed amount of meat produced, whether or not there is demand (including yours) for it. If this is the case, then I think the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders since it goes against everything we know about how markets function. — jastopher

My individual demand has no affect on the supply. The market is too big for a single individual's eating habits to change the scale of production. My decision to stop buying meat wouldn't save any animal's life, and a vegetarian's decision to start buying meat wouldn't cost any animal its life.

If you buy a dead chicken then the space on the supermarket shelf will necessitate the killing of another chicken. Your purchase of an already killed chicken directly precipitates the killing of another chicken. — jastopher

There's going to be a space whether I buy it or not, either because somebody else buys it or because it goes to waste, and an individual wasted chicken that would have otherwise been bought by me isn't going to make a difference to the supermarket's next order (or further up the chain, how many chickens the farmer will kill). It's not as if they're going to go for 99 chickens rather than 100.

I don't hold an individual Trump voter responsible for the things Trump does as President, even if that Trump voter voted with the knowledge that Trump would do what he does. And so I don't hold a meat eater responsible for the things farmers do, even if that meat eater buys meat with the knowledge that farmers kill animals. Responsibility doesn't work that way.

You can argue that it's wrong to vote for someone who will do terrible things, or that it's wrong to financially support someone who kills animals, but it isn't right to accuse the voter or the customer of being responsible.

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.

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.

My individual demand has no affect on the supply. — Michael

I applaud your dogmatism.

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.

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

Your use of the term "paying for" is misleading. I exchange my money for some meat at a supermarket. That's the extent of my involvement. That the supermarket then uses some of that money to cover their costs of purchasing that meat from farmers who in turn kill animals for that meat is not any of my responsibility. — Michael

As a paying consumer, you are participating in the whole process. You cannot simply wipe your hands of responsibility when you know part of the process is immoral.
Otherwise you could justify paying for and consuming all sorts of heinous products including, but not limited to: elephant tusks, child pornography, soap made out of the ashes of dead Jews (like they made during the Holocaust), and so on.

You said that me eating meat (or rather buying meat) is responsible for those deaths, and so is wrong. Now you're just saying that it's wrong to support an industry that kills animals. That's a different argument altogether. — Michael

It's the exact same argument. Buying meat supports the industry, which means you're co-responsible for the deaths.

How does animal biology and evolutionary theory show that there's something it's like to be an animal (to use Nagel's phrasing)? — Michael

Since their biology mirrors ours in all capacities that are required to experience pain and suffering. And evolutionary theory states that all capacities humans have must exist in varying degrees (more, equal, or less) in other animals. And again, you don't have any evidence to suggest they are not capable of suffering.

Again, it's not the eating that's wrong. It's the killing that's (supposedly) wrong. The problem is that you haven't shown a sufficient connection between the two to warrant blaming those who eat meat for those killings. — Michael

It's not ridiculous if it's true that eating human meat isn't unethical, and you agreed that it isn't. — Michael

I'll reiterate once more, eating animals is really only in theory okay, since the morally acceptable practice thereof applies only to such marginal cases that don't pertain to our actual lives. Soooo, any talk about eating animals really implies that they were slaughtered as well.

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. — chatterbears

It's hard to understand how someone can't understand that... but it's a fun exercise to try and find the best way to explain it!

Otherwise you could justify paying for and consuming all sorts of heinous products including, but not limited to: elephant tusks, child pornography, soap made out of the ashes of dead Jews (like they made during the Holocaust), and so on. — NKBJ

Who said anything about justifying it? I'm only saying that the person paying for it isn't responsible for what's done. If I hire a contract killer that doesn't make me responsible for murder; I'm only responsible for soliciting murder. The killer has all the responsibility for the murder.

So if you want to say that the person who buys meat is guilty of soliciting the killing of animals then your argument has more merit, although you'll then have to argue that it's wrong to solicit the killing of animals.

But to accuse the person buying the meat of being responsible for how farmers go about providing that meat? That's a false accusation. I'm never responsible for what other free agents choose to do.

The grounds of the exception are imposed diminished well-being, — chatterbears

Right. So you accept that this is a legitimate counter-interest. And now your problem is how to prevent sliding down the same slippery slope you employ to argue your own preferred ethical priority.

Let's be logically consistent here. Either two opposed interests are legitimate and so need to be balanced. Or your argument is that one interest rules in absolute fashion, meaning that you haven't actually accepted that the other interest has any ground to be an exception to the preference you've expressed.

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." — chatterbears

What exactly is illegitimate about that counter-argument - when your argument relies on the abhorrence of suffering?

In the end - unless you define sentience in a more socially-constructed fashion - the only suffering any sentient being could feel would be their own. So any empathy or compassion becomes a logical puzzle - why would you choose to feel the pain of others if you could as easily avoid it?

That is why my own position is focused on why we actually would - as socially evolved creatures - feel empathy and compassion for good pragmatic reason. It is in fact basic to our nature for self-evident evolutionary advantage.

So there is an evolved basis, a pragmatic basis. But not then some objective transcendent basis. If we are talking about extending our habits of empathy and compassion beyond the bounds of our own species, that is something new that we would have to justify on the same grounds of offering an evolutionary advantage. That is what ethical consistency would look like here.

I'd like you to tell me why you believe that eating animals is justified, without pointing to what you think my view is. — chatterbears

But I did and have done so again. However I was focused on addressing your argument and so did try to keep my own views on the back-burner. I'm compassionate and empathetic that way.

It would be nice if you answered specifically on my argument against your argument: how is it that the same slippery slope thinking can't be employed against you? If suffering is what counts in some absolute and subjective fashion, then why wouldn't I cite the absolute right to self-defence to put my own suffering first in any ethical situation?

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. — chatterbears

Actually I've written plenty on these kinds of issues. And I said I accept that there are pragmatic arguments for why we may collectively head towards veganism of some form for these kinds of reasons.

But pragmatic ethics is about the balancing of opposing interests. And it is about accepting that often the situation is grey as what is at stake doesn't matter enough. Someone's personal choice counts as an accident so far as the general case is concerned.

So the black and white stance you want to take is alien to that considered approach to moral issues. Nothing is "just wrong". If behaviour is to be constrained, it only needs to be limited to some reasonable degree. So compassion and empathy may be great qualities in a creature that depends on social living. But selfishness and hard-heartedness are also qualities that provide a necessary balance. They are part of the mix too.

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? — chatterbears

Who are you to determine what is terrible? Are slavery and cannibalism bad in some abstract and transcendent way, or just not very functional as a social formula?

My point would be that you start by assuming your conclusion - x is morally unacceptable, therefore...

And that way of moral thinking in fact has a pretty chequered past. As I have mentioned - the counter-argument you have dodged - once folk start arguing like that, then the same slippery slope logic can be applied the other way.

Eating autistics is similar to eating animals. There is no NEED for the consumption of either of these living beings. — chatterbears

Pragmatically, we can eat plants. I agree. But where is the need to do that exclusively?

Your argument rested on the pain and suffering experienced by sentient beings. And I'm waiting for you to address the counter-argument.

Given you accepted self-defence as a proper ground to justify harming other sentient beings, what stops that self-defence argument being used to justify a right not to be troubled by feelings of compassion and empathy for other creatures ... when you literally cannot experience their experience anyway.

Again, this is not my own ethical position. I think there are good pragmatic arguments for there being empathy and compassion in our moral conduct. We are primarily social creatures and it goes with the territory.

But your way of arguing is seeking an objective and absolute need. And that is fundamentally unreasonable - as is shown when that same way of arguing is used to justify its complete opposite moral stance.

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.

Who said anything about justifying it? — Michael

Justify means "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right." Since you are trying argue that buying/eating meat is okay, you are justifying it.

I'm never responsible for what other free agents choose to do. — Michael

You can be. It's called "aiding and abetting." Paying someone for an immoral act falls in that category.

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). — chatterbears

I'm employing the same slippery slope logic that you are employing here. Why can't I believe that eating meat is just part of who I am as a sentient being. So you are threatening my survival in that regard.

Why can't I believe that eating meat is just part of who I am as a sentient being — apokrisis

You can believe you are a pink unicorn too if you want. Doesn't make it true.

You are conflating self-defense (something that is necessary for survival) and eating meat (something that is NOT necessary for survival). — chatterbears

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.

When the argument requires you to consider the cannibalism of autistic human as a limit-case, then you know you are fighting a battle that can only be won by not participating.

You can believe you are a pink unicorn too if you want. Doesn't make it true. — NKBJ

Thanks for agreeing. Chatterbears's position asks us to just accept our subjectively revealed beliefs as if they were objective moral absolutes. So like me, you would prefer our beliefs to be founded on reason and evidence. You take the pragmatist position on these things.

So like me, you would prefer our beliefs to be founded on reason and evidence. — apokrisis

I would.

Chatterbears's position asks us to just accept our subjectively revealed beliefs as if they were objective moral absolutes. — apokrisis

I haven't seen that. I've mainly seen him defending beliefs with reason and evidence and therefore arriving at sound moral conclusions.

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

Why so bitter and trollish today?

When the argument requires you to consider the cannibalism of autistic human as a limit-case, then you know you are fighting a battle that can only be won by not participating. — Akanthinos

Are you so easily confused by words that you don't see I asked Chatterbears to address the issue of how limits ought to be imposed on unrestricted moral imperatives?

He suggests a cut-off at the level of animals. So plant life is alright to eat. And he also accepts that the sentience of animals is not exactly at the level of humans. So the issue becomes why should compassion and empathy extend past the species boundary?

Perhaps it should. But his argument has become arbitrary to the degree it rests on treating "sentience" as both something black and white (plants don't have it?) and also admitting that humans and animals are significantly different, if in ways he fails to specify.

So he is conflating an absolutist position with a degree of pragmatism. Maybe that is why you are confused by his posts?

He does throw in the fact we can survive on a vegan diet, the environmental damage of trying to feed 10 billion people on steak, and other quite reasonable points. 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.

That is fine as far as it goes. But my reply is that compassion and empathy are pragmatic response that evolved for self-evident reason in us as social creatures. And there is then a balance to be struck, given the fundamentally evolutionary nature of the equation.

If someone looks inside and discovers that besides empathy/compassion they experience desire/self-concern - or indeed just that when faced with a steak - then what becomes the ethically consistent outcome in that light?

I agree we would still want to arrive at a consistent story. Seems reasonable anyway. But Chatterbears's approach doesn't look to be delivering that.

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.

I've mainly seen him defending beliefs with reason and evidence and therefore arriving at sound moral conclusions. — NKBJ

To remind you...

But I'd also say it is impossible to accept these 3 moral pillars while simultaneously eating animals. And these 3 pillars are: Empathy, compassion and ethical consistency. — chatterbears

...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.

My argument has been that - pragmatically - all foundations are dichotomous. Any complex system is founded on a dialectical balance. So you need complementary "pillars" here so that you can build your moral position on an actually balanced ground - the view that takes into account both sides of the coin in explicit fashion.

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.