The key phrase being "capable of doing so." And by that I mean if we could do it in a way that wouldn't cause the ecosystem to collapse or tragedy to happen, obviously. And I'm not even seriously suggesting it, because we're obviously eons away from being able to do so, if we ever could.
It's just a hypothesis. Just like the p-zombie thread is based on hypothesis. Such scenarios just serve to help us articulate how and why we ought to do certain things.

But this is not remotely similar to contributing to animal torture and death. We know who is responsible for the animal slaughter and yet we still contribute to it. Both situations display our selfish actions, which are indeed immoral. — chatterbears

Morality is dependent on empathy - to be able to feel for other people. Even a schoolboy knows that our empathy is not universal. Rather it decreases with what I describe as ''feeling range'' which is basically the fact that our feelings are strongest for the self, then family, then friends, community, country, humans, animals and then plants.

As you can see animals at the end of our ''feeling range''. That's the reason why you made this post and that is also why you advise us to be vegetarian.

Also, if you notice you'll find people extending their ''feeling range'' just as you have.

So this is the difficulty with your ethical position. You're saying we have a moral obligation to prevent the death of every sentient being with no restriction other than our knowledge of the potential consequenses. Do you realise the risk that obligation entails by referring to nothing more than our current knowledge to judge the infinite future consequences of our actions? Do you really trust our current knowledge that much?

We're not talking about your suffering or death. No human is going to die because we decided not to hurt the animals. — NKBJ

So you don't think that the two situations are analogous? Because earlier on you seemed to be trying to blur the lines, focussing on the similarities between humans and other animals, putting forward arguments such as that if it's okay to cause pain to a chicken, then it must be okay to cause pain to an infant, and so on. At one point, you said that equating them is to leave humans in value right where they are while raising the status of animals.

You seem to have changed your tune. I remember sarcastically telling you that I'm sure a Kentucky Fried Human would be a real hit in response to your bringing up of humans when we were talking about chickens, yet now it seems that you want to leave humans out of it and stick to talk of chickens. Interesting...

Do you realise the risk that obligation entails by referring to nothing more than our current knowledge to judge the infinite future consequences of our actions? Do you really trust our current knowledge that much? — Pseudonym

We always have to go with our best knowledge and act as morally as we can accordingly. I don't see how we can reasonably act any differently. Yes, that means sometimes bad things will happen anyway, but that most certainly is better than doing wrong things knowingly.
But that also entails knowing when we don't know something. I know I don't know how to save gazelles from lions without causing disaster, therefore I don't try to.
Since our knowledge is not, nor probably could ever be infinite, we needn't try to judge infinite consequences. But any foreseeable consequences should definitely be taken into account.

I know that you could probably figure this out on your own if you actually tried, but okay, I'll explain it slowly:
Just now we were talking about being caught between two acts. I'm pointing out that giving up meat is nothing compared to the suffering of animals. You jumped to talking about sacrificing animals to save humans. I explained that no one is suggesting we sacrifice human lives or even cause them suffering. The great thing is, we can do both: we can let humans live AND let animals live. Woot woot!

That is a wholly different argument than explaining that human and animal suffering are alike in many significant ways that both matter morally.

That's pretty much a definition of consequentialism. So to be consistent you'd have to take a consequntialist approach to the eating of meat too, so where's the argument that the killing of animals for food causes more harm than good for the foseeable future based on current knowledge? Not factory farming, just any killing of animals. More importantly, where's the argument that it does so with such incontrovertible certainty that the moral choice is as unavoidable as it is being painted here?

I know that... — NKBJ

Wait! You're going too fast.

Just now we were talking about being caught between two acts. I'm pointing out that giving up meat is nothing compared to the suffering of animals. You jumped to talking about sacrificing animals to save humans. I explained that no one is suggesting we sacrifice human lives or even cause them suffering. The great thing is, we can do both: we can let humans live AND let animals live. Woot woot!

That is a wholly different argument than explaining that human and animal suffering are alike in many significant ways that both matter morally. — NKBJ

I'm not just randomly jumping off to talk about a subject with no relationship to what you're saying. You've just said that you were pointing out that giving up meat is nothing compared to the suffering of animals, and, in response, I'm saying that the suffering of other animals is nothing compared to the suffering of humans. This indicates the scale of significance beyond mere right and wrong that I brought up earlier. For me, humans are at the top, and other animals don't matter as much. So, even if it's wrong, it's not wrong in the same way, which is important. Because if this were about the holocaust, then I would judge it very differently. But it's not.

The great thing is, we can let other animals live decent lives, right up until we kill them for food production. And, since they're not quite like us, it doesn't matter as much as it otherwise would. That way, it's a sort of compromise where we both benefit. They get to live a decent life, and I get to eat meat. Woot woot!

In the reality that we presently occupy you must procure your carrot and in doing so you effect as much harm if not more harm than you would by eating the snail. — Marcus de Brun

I provided scientific evidence that eating animals cause more objective harm than eating a carrot. Are you going to provide any counter-argument or any type of evidence at all, other than just saying "carrot harm and snail harm are the same"? Also, the comparison of snails to factory farmed animals is absurd.

All vegans are vegetarian and some are fundamentalist in their thinking. — Marcus de Brun

Fundamentalist how? Again, saying things without providing an actual argument or evidence for it. You seem to just assert things without any logic to back it up.

If we conclude that it's OK for the lion to kill the gazelle because it doesn't know right from wrong, then, in order to be consistent, we must also conclude that it's OK for the mentally disabled person to kill whomever they wish because they don't know right from wrong. — Pseudonym

The lion requires the consumption of the gazelle to survive. This is a necessary evil for the lion to survive. The mentally disabled person does not require the killing of whomever they wish in order to survive. This is an unnecessary evil for the mentally disabled person to survive.

Hence I go back to the factory farms, which are an unnecessary evil, and is not required for humans to survive.

I only have to answer the question in a way which answers the question, which is what I've done. I don't have to answer the question in the way that you're pushing for, which is unnecessary and would play into your hand — Sapientia

So to clarify, are you a speciesist? Because since you don't have a specify trait you can point to, in distinguishing why one animal (humans) deserves better treatment than another animal (pigs), this is an easy position to attack.

Sapientia believes it is okay to kill animals for food, based on the difference in species.
Alien believes it is okay to kill humans for food, based on the difference in species.

Do you accept both of these scenarios? If not, you're internally inconsistent.

Who here, if anyone, is of the position that intelligence or any other single trait is the sole basis of distinguishing between humans and other animals in terms of how we judge how they should be treated? Let's not forget that you have played a part in bringing about this problem by asking subtly loaded questions which contain the controversial assumption that the distinction is due to a single trait, rather than a set of traits. — Sapientia

I ask for a single trait, rather than multiple at a time, so we can tackle each trait one-by-one. I am fully aware that everyone has multiple traits they can point to, but I'd rather dissect each trait to see if it is valid and worthy of justifying the unnecessary killing of animals.

So if you have 5 traits: Weight, species, intelligence, taste, convenience

We would need to go one-by-one and see if each justification is valid and consistent on its own. Is a difference in "weight" a valid justification for killing something? No. Is the pleasure of "taste" a valid justification for killing something? No.

We can go one-by-one, and eliminate each justification by deploying logical consistency to it, in which the person would now be left with ZERO valid justifications for why they feel it is okay to kill animals.

And dogs? Surely dogs too. — apokrisis

Can dogs understand voting rights? No. Therefore, that right should not be granted to them.

Can dogs understand pain and suffering? Yes, therefore the right to protect them from that should be granted to them.

The lion requires the consumption of the gazelle to survive. This is a necessary evil for the lion to survive. The mentally disabled person does not require the killing of whomever they wish in order to survive. This is an unnecessary evil for the mentally disabled person to survive.

Hence I go back to the factory farms, which are an unnecessary evil, and is not required for humans to survive. — chatterbears

It's not about the morality of the lion or the psychopath, it's about the morality of the person with the ability to prevent either killing. In order to be consistent you would have to hold the view that, if at any time if became unnecessary for the lion to kill the gazelle we are as morally obliged to prevent it as we are to prevent the deaths caused by the psychopath. So, what do you do about excess killing? Would you be in favour of the destruction of the Wolf pack responsible for the killing of 18 Elk without the need for food in order to prevent them from doing it again?

The 'what we should prefer to eat' remains an entirely selfish and self serving argument, because the meat or animals that he does not wish to eat resemble himself in some manner: vis the capacity to have thought, experience pain, be unhappy and so on. Life is to be more valued as it approximates to the animal that he loves the most. — Marcus de Brun

Completely false, as I stated every animal deserves basic rights. I have no love for porcupines in the same way I love dogs, but both of these species deserve basic rights. And the 'what we should prefer to eat' is the opposite of selfish, because I am willing to give up the pleasure of 'steak, cheese, chicken and ice cream', to cause less suffering to the animals that derive from these foods. Eating plant-based foods objectively causes less suffering to the animals and the environment, compared to eating meat.

This is simplistic and again is subject to selfish principles because one must decide upon the form of life that can be eaten and that which should not be eaten, and once again we arrive at rigid fundamental principles. — Marcus de Brun

The form of life that can be eaten is the one that causes less harm and suffering. In which, factory farms, objectively cause more harm. You seem to be ignorant of the actual research behind factory farms and the harm they cause to the animals and environment.

Upon the carrot there live micro organisms that are also imbued with life. The Carrot itself is a valid living entity that is no less alive and no less beautiful than an oak or redwood tree. — Marcus de Brun

A microscopic organism, such as a bacterium or virus, cannot feel pain, nor do they have a brain to think or communicate back to us in a meaningful way. Brains are made of many neurons that are interconnected to each other. Each neuron is a cell. Bacteria are single-celled organisms - as such, there is no possibility for a single bacterium to develop a brain. Viruses are even smaller than bacteria - they are in fact sub-cellular. It would only make sense to grant rights to a living being that has sentience, as these basic rights directly address possible pain and suffering.

So to equate a carrot to an animal, simply because the carrot may living microscopic organisms living on it or within it, is objectively false.

If I have a chainsaw in my hand and I ask chatterbears which is more immoral: to chop down the old redwood or eat the burger? If he says that carrots are less beautiful than redwoods that is simply because there are more carrots than redwoods... again a self serving view of what is beautiful and what is to be cherished. Dont eat the carrot, dont eat the cow and dont chop the redwood unless you have a philosophically validated need to do so. — Marcus de Brun

My argument has nothing to do with beauty. Where did you even get that from?

My argument has to do with the unnecessary harm caused by humans, when there are better alternatives. Chopping down a redwood may indirectly harm squirrels and insects, which if unnecessary, should be avoided. Killing animals is DIRECT harm to them, which is a key difference here. Indirect harm and direct harm. One (factory farms) can be easily avoided and is unnecessary, while the other (cutting down trees) is harder to avoid any harm, but should still be considered if possible.

Yes, and that's just one of many absurd consequences which arise from the endorsement of an equality of kind which neglects a difference in degree. This is the one fault which pervades much of his thinking. — Sapientia

-Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (Article 3)
-Freedom from Slavery (Article 4)
-Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment (Article 5)

I don't believe all animals deserve every right a human has, such as Article 17, which is the right to own property. But I do believe all animals deserve these basic 3 rights, which have been granted to humans. Animals deserve what they can understand and experience. Owning a car, house or voting cannot be understand by these animals.

But what does it mean to talk of killing other beings unnecessarily? — Sapientia

Quite simple. Don't kill other sentient beings if you don't need to. There are two options.

A: Eat animals, which results in pain, torture and death.
B: Eat plants, which results in almost no pain, no torture and no death.

A is unnecessary to live and be healthy. B is necessary to live and be healthy. B will still have some indirect pain/death associated with it, such as the field mice that die during the harvesting of our crops. But the pain/death associated with B, is not even remotely similar to the pain/death associated with A.

Again, look up the environmental factors between meat and vegetables. And I will link the research again if you need me to.

I think chatterbears is very passionate about animal rights, and sometimes when that's the case it becomes hard to understand why other people don't believe as oneself — Moliere

Logical consistency implies equality. I wasn't hiding anything, and from the very beginning of this thread, I have stated "Don't justify an action you wouldn't accept if the trait you are discriminating against was active in yourself". Example:

A: I kill animals because they are less intelligent. (chicken)
B: I do not kill humans if they were less intelligent. (mentally disabled person)

Although the position implies equality, as I said from the start, this is about logical consistency. If you're not consistent within your own subjective ethics, you have no grounds for telling me what is moral or immoral. And also, you have contradictory/hypocritical beliefs within your own internal moral framework.

Because humans are more important to me than other animals. It's not a particular trait of humans that makes me feel that way, or a set of traits. I belong to the group 'humans', and I look out for their self-interest. — Moliere

This seems to me you are a speciesist. Is this correct? That because a species is different, we are therefore justified in treating them however we want.

B will still have some indirect pain/death associated with it, such as the field mice that die during the harvesting of our crops. But the pain/death associated with B, is not even remotely similar to the pain/death associated with A. — chatterbears

You see this is where you keep changing the terms of your argument. On the one hand you talk about the pain/suffering of creatures who can feel pain (this is how you avoid the reality that vegetable farming kills billions of insects/worms etc). But then when the idea of humane animal farming is raised, such that the farmed animals feel no pain, you go back to the idea that it is simply the killing that's wrong for purely ethical reasons (to avoid having to concede that humane animal farming would solve the problem).

Decide which is the wrong you wish to avoid - pain and suffering, or the taking of innocent life, and then we can continue the debate based on that.

You seem to be erroneously assuming that others must accept this hidden principle of an equality of sorts among species which you seem to presuppose. If I reject this principle, then I'm not being inconsistent if I don't judge or act in accordance with it. I can have empathy for humans and logical consistency, yet reject veganism. — Sapientia

Not necessarily equality, as more so to do with consistency. Also, even if it was about equality specifically, what valid counter-argument have you presented to reject this principle? All you have presented is, "Cows are animals, humans are humans. Therefore I can subject cows to pain and slaughter." - This sounds like a speciesist position, in which can be easily refuted by an Alien hypothetical. So again, you're not logically consistent.

Rights are of no practical use unless they are protected, or "secured", as you worded it. And since animals can't reflect upon their own right to life like we humans can, I do think it is part of our job to protect the rights of animals.

This seems to me you are a speciesist. Is this correct? That because a species is different, we are therefore justified in treating them however we want. — chatterbears

If that's what speciesism is then I don't think I'd qualify as a speciesist.

How different are we from animals, really? Is there a difference that makes a difference?

Not really. We are nothing but animals, ourselves. And we are an animal I happen to prefer over other animals, when it comes to satisfying needs.

That doesn't then imply that I think we can do whatever we want to every other animal. I don't believe in torturing animals. I find some scientific experiments that use animals to be inhumane. I think dog fighting and cock fighting are wrong. I don't think the way we produce meat now is humane.

So I guess I don't qualify, by this particular definition. Still, I think it's fine to eat other animals. We can do so, and other animals do the same as us. I don't think it's necessary, as you note. We could get by on a vegan diet -- the species wouldn't cease to exist were everyone to go vegan.

But so what?

It seems to me that you believe animals have inalienable rights. But why? Why on earth would you believe such a thing? What gives animals rights?

Humans have rights in our current political setup. I don't think they have inalienable rights. Rights are legal entities that gives some political agent a claim to something -- be they positive or negative rights.

If you're not consistent within your own subjective ethics, you have no grounds for telling me what is moral or immoral. And also, you have contradictory/hypocritical beliefs within your own internal moral framework. — chatterbears

Well, I wasn't telling you what is moral or immoral. :D By all means bless your vegan heart.

You see this is where you keep changing the terms of your argument. On the one hand you talk about the pain/suffering of creatures who can feel pain (this is how you avoid the reality that vegetable farming kills billions of insects/worms etc). But then when the idea of humane animal farming is raised, such that the farmed animals feel no pain, you go back to the idea that it is simply the killing that's wrong for purely ethical reasons (to avoid having to concede that humane animal farming would solve the problem). — Pseudonym

Half the world's grain crops are fed to the world's 65 billion farm animals. How many insects/worms do you think are killed in the process of harvesting these crops for the farm animals? How much grain crops does 1 cow eat, compared to 1 person? Think about how many crops we need to grow for farm animals, compared to how many we would need to grow for ourselves.

I already acknowledged harvesting fruits/vegetables/grain has some harm associated with it. But again, the harm associated with fruits/vegetables/grain is demonstrably less than factory farms, by a substantial margin.

Both are important. To lessen the pain and suffering, while also lessening the death count. Veganism accomplishes both of those things. You just need to do a little research.

It seems to me that you believe animals have inalienable rights. But why? Why on earth would you believe such a thing? What gives animals rights? — Moliere

Again, unless you want to produce an inconsistency within your own ethical framework, you would need to grant the same 3 basic rights to animals.

- Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (Article 3)
- Freedom from Slavery (Article 4)
- Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment (Article 5)

And we are an animal I happen to prefer over other animals, when it comes to satisfying needs. — Moliere

Since you claim you are not a speciesist, you seem to be basing your reasoning on preference? Which we can easily refute right now.

Is "preference" a valid justification to use for causing needless harm to another sentient being? It could be the preference of a white man to enslave a black man. It could be my preference to torture a dog and then kill it. It could be your preference to contribute to factory farming. None of these are a "need". So when you say, "when it comes to satisfying needs", eating meat is not a NEED for survival.

Clearly "preference" is not valid, and not consistent.

So to clarify, are you a speciesist? — chatterbears

No, I'm not a speciesist, because I judge situations which are similar in other respects differently in light of relevant differences between species, not soley on the basis of species alone or on the basis of irrelevant differences. I've already said that I'd be fine with eating a human burger under the right circumstances, and I'd also judge and treat chickens on a par with humans under the right circumstances, but presently these circumstances are only hypothetical.

Because since you don't have a specific trait you can point to, in distinguishing why one animal (humans) deserves better treatment than another animal (pigs), this is an easy position to attack. — chatterbears

That's right: I don't distinguish between the one and the other based on a single specific trait. If that makes my position easy to attack, as you say, then I'm curious as to why you seem to have been holding back doing so thus far, choosing instead to repeat the same line of questioning which I've already dealt with.

Sapientia believes it is okay to kill animals for food, based on the difference in species.
Alien believes it is okay to kill humans for food, based on the difference in species.

Do you accept both of these scenarios? If not, you're internally inconsistent. — chatterbears

That's not an accurate representation of my position, and it doesn't demonstrate any inconsistency in my position.

I find it acceptable enough that other animals are killed to produce food for humans based on what the difference in species entails, and I wouldn't find it acceptable enough otherwise. Meaning that if a species were sufficiently human-like, I would not find it acceptable enough. And funnily enough, humans are sufficiently human-like.

Rather it decreases with what I describe as ''feeling range'' which is basically the fact that our feelings are strongest for the self, then family, then friends, community, country, humans, animals and then plants. — TheMadFool

Plants do not have a brain or nervous system to experience pain, therefore they don't' belong in this discussion. As far as basic rights, my "feeling range" is the same for all sentient beings. So I don't know how your point applies to my argument.

No, I'm not a speciesist — Sapientia

So at this point, you're either being intellectually dishonest or are extremely confused. Other way, I think I have tried enough times to get a valid, coherent answer out of you, but you never supply one. I don't care to continue the discussion with you specifically, but others (such as Buxtebuddha or NKBJ) are welcome to try.

Until you supply me (or anyone) with a valid and coherent justification for why you feel it is necessary to kill animals, there's no point in a discussion. All you say is, "There's no single trait that I can point to, and I am not a speciesist." - If you don't even know why you are justified in committing the actions you initiate, it is no surprise that you have a hard time with considering animal well-being.

I ask for a single trait, rather than multiple at a time, so we can tackle each trait one-by-one. I am fully aware that everyone has multiple traits they can point to, but I'd rather dissect each trait to see if it is valid and worthy of justifying the unnecessary killing of animals.

So if you have 5 traits: Weight, species, intelligence, taste, convenience

We would need to go one-by-one and see if each justification is valid and consistent on its own. Is a difference in "weight" a valid justification for killing something? No. Is the pleasure of "taste" a valid justification for killing something? No.

We can go one-by-one, and eliminate each justification by deploying logical consistency to it, in which the person would now be left with ZERO valid justifications for why they feel it is okay to kill animals. — chatterbears

Your method for assessing the justification for the conditional necessity of killing other animals is flawed, as I've explained, because it is an example of the fallacy of composition. It's a fallacy to infer that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole, or even of every proper part. That a wheel can't fly, and that a wing can't fly, and that an engine can't fly, and so on, and so forth, does not mean that a plane can't fly. Similarly, if weight alone isn't good enough of a reason, and if species alone isn't good enough of a reason, and so on, and so forth, that doesn't mean that the set of circumstances as a whole isn't good enough of a reason.

In order to be consistent you would have to hold the view that, if at any time if became unnecessary for the lion to kill the gazelle we are as morally obliged to prevent it as we are to prevent the deaths caused by the psychopath — Pseudonym

I don't see how we could reasonable judge whether or not it became unnecessary for a lion to kill a gazelle. How would you even be able to differentiate 'need' and 'needless' in regards to a lion's survival? I don't think you could, but feel free to provide me evidence to suggest otherwise.

Also, this is a secondary issue to factory farming. Even if there are other unnecessary harms performed by other animals, we first need to fix the unnecessary harms we are engaged in. After we fix that, we can then focus on other issues, if that is even necessary.