This is how slavery existed for hundreds of years, because people were content with their inconsistency. — chatterbears

Yes, but slavery is on another level. You might think otherwise, but you haven't convinced me otherwise, and I doubt you will be able to.

It is how women didn't have the right to vote up until recently, because people were content with their inconsistencies. — chatterbears

Yes. But for me, neither slavery nor female suffrage poses the challenge that the consumption of animal products does. I'm not torn between wanting to keep slaves or prevent women to vote and feeling that it's kind of wrong.

People feel ok discriminating against others, acknowledging their inconsistency on the basis for doing so, and continue to discriminate. — chatterbears

Yes. And...? I'm not one of those people, or at least I try not to be, unless you're including animals, in which case, yes, I treat other animals differently to humans, because they are different. I acknowledge that inconsistency is a problem, but, depending on the context and how it is judged, how big of a problem it's considered to be will vary. You think that it's a bigger problem than I do with regards to this topic.

Also, if being gay conflicted with your morals, you'd have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with your beliefs, in which you would then be consistent AND happy. — chatterbears

No, that's an option in the hypothetical scenario. I told you that the person can't bring themselves to abandon their morals, and yet their morals are incompatible with living a lifestyle in which they'd be happy. Not living this lifestyle makes the person miserable, or at best feeling like they're stuck in a situation where they're left unfulfilled.

Your response is rather like me telling you that you have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with the consumption of animal products. Everyone has their red lines, and in the thought experiment, this is one of them.

Anybody who is gay that is conflicted, has been brought up religious. — chatterbears

No, not necessarily.

Also, you seem like a person who lacks empathy and focuses on selfish desires. — chatterbears

Maybe that's true, but you don't have enough of a basis to make that judgement if you're making it based on this one issue. If I lack empathy and focus on selfish desires, based solely on my views on this one topic, then that's no more true of me than of the average person. The average person is a meat eater, and is likely similarly conflicted, at least when they think about it.

Which is not surprising, because a vast majority of people are like that. — chatterbears

Oh, you accept that. Okay.

As you said, you like animals, but you also like the taste of animal flesh. Despite this being in conflict with your values, you will continue to do it anyways because you value convenience and pleasure over the life of another being. — chatterbears

It's not all about values. An urge isn't a value. A desire isn't a value. A craving isn't a value. An impulse isn't a value. A conditioned behaviour or a habit isn't a value. A persons ability to change their behaviour isn't a value.

And besides, nothing is set in stone. I think I could change. Especially since I can see things from your point of view and am not wholly unsympathetic towards that way of looking at things. But yeah, I haven't changed enough to stop consuming animal products since the last time we had this discussion a while back. If it was as easy as clicking your fingers, then I would probably become a vegan. But it ain't that easy. What might seem to be the most ethical thing to do isn't necessarily the best thing for a person to do. My happiness is important, and selflessness has its downsides.

If factory meat is scalable to feed mass populations, and can be provided affordably, this may be the solution. This may be a case where science can provide a better solution that "religion", ie. morality, and I demand that Karl Stone applaud me for saying so. :smile:

That's irrelevant to the point. Years ago, black people were believed to NOT have free-will as part of the equality package. This meant that, LIKE animals, black people did NOT get to determine their circumstances. — chatterbears

There is less utility in animal agriculture than there was in black slavery. Utilitarianism leads to Veganism, not away from it. Veganism benefits the world more than non-Veganism. Health, environment, and the animals themselves. — chatterbears

The above shows that ethics/morality is determined by popular consensus within a particular sphere of interaction. This means that, in some places, cultures, governments, etc, it was ethical/moral to practice slavery while in others it was not. Remember, even in those african communities, there was a lot of discrimination and denial of certain rights and freedoms. Just because they were enslaved by others doesn't mean they were ideal humans in themselves.
If by being ethical/moral you are asking if certain actions are ideal (perfect), then no human activity or choices are ethical/moral. There are no ideal humans.

Yet, even then when humans were relatively more ignorant compared to now, they still had edicts of ethics/morality. So, right now, is dominion over animals unethical? No. That's the way it is. I know it is not something others would approve but they don't get to decide ethics/morality for everyone else.

At best, the dominion over animals is unethical/immoral for those who believe animals deserve equal treatment to humans. This is because they have created their own sphere of interaction in which such dominion is unethical/immoral. However, other humans have other spheres of interaction in which such dominion is not. For them, even as they refine their treatment of animals according to certain values, they maintain their dominion.

So, do you think your rules of ethics/morals applies to everyone indiscriminately? Absolutely not.
You (or any other individual) don't get to determine ethics/morality for others. Every person determines their own ethics/morality or, at least, the sphere of interaction they belong to for the collective ethics/morality of a given group of humans (country, culture, religion, field of study, trend, etc).

Here's an article which may serve as an introduction to "clean meat", ie. meat made in a lab without the need to raise and kill animals.

https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/jul/24/lab-grown-food-indiebio-artificial-intelligence-walmart-vegetarian

Some quotes from the article:

Memphis Meats, which generated headlines last year with the creation of the world’s first lab-grown meatball. The company has subsequently succeeded in making “clean” chicken and duck (without needing to raise and kill the animals for their meat).

Its CEO Uma Valeti says the process involves taking tiny meat cells from an animal (via a painless biopsy or sample). These are then fed nutrients, which enables the cells to grow, and they eventually turn into edible meat. “We’re developing a method that would allow the cells to self-renew indefinitely, meaning after the initial cells are obtained, we wouldn’t need to return to the animal for subsequent samples,” Valeti says. “Our goal is to entirely remove the animal from the meat production process.”

Memphis Meats has to spend around $2,400 (£1,800) to make 450 grams of beef. However, the price is falling and the company aims to hit the market in 2021.

$2,400 to make 450 grams of beef. Oh well, looks like we got a way to go yet on this one. Back to moralizing for now I suppose.

So the chief question here is whether man is essentially (ontologically/physically/other) superior to animals and only by acting according to his superiority could he be considered to not be committing injustice.

Here is another question: Is killing a fly a killing? Has an injustice been committed where the flyswatter slays its prey?

What do you guys think of justice/injustice as operating beyond the human realm into the world of animals (and maybe plants?)

For you, laziness is a good basis for moral decisions — chatterbears

I actually didn't say anything about that. In the post about laziness, in fact, I explicitly said, "Not for any ethical reasons."

For me, re metaethics, the only basis there is for morality, at least foundationally, is how someone feels about interpersonal behavior. It's not a good or bad basis. It's just factually the basis.

As I've said again and again, no non-moral stance, fact, etc. can imply any moral stance.

"Laziness" isn't a moral stance. Hence "laziness" can imply no moral stance.

Suppose a husband and wife have a child with Down's Syndrome whom they have always loved dearly are cared for in an exemplary manner.Is the dominion - in terms of the strict discipline and physical restraint, etc; - that these parents must often exercise over their DS child's behaviours on a day-to-day basis ( or even hour -to hour) unethical? — johnGould

No, because they are caring for the child who has special needs. This is the opposite of unethical. If our dominion over animals was anything remotely close to the parents dominion over their DS child, this discussion wouldn't exist. The fact is, we use our dominion over animals to exploit them, torture them, rape them, and slaughter them. Do any of those heinous acts exist within the parents of the DS child?

There will be a story on NPR tomorrow about meat products grown in a lab. It's real meat, but no animals involved. I'm guessing you know more about this that most of us, so I'd be interested in your understandings and opinion.

My very basic understanding, hopefully somewhat correct, is that they do in the lab just what an animal does, start with plant material, and turn it in to meat.

What do you know about this? — Jake

Not much, as it is still in the research & development stage. Right now, there are plant based "burgers" out there, such as Beyond Meat or The Impossible Burger. I eat The Impossible Burger regularly, and it tastes quite good.

Yes, but slavery is on another level. You might think otherwise, but you haven't convinced me otherwise, and I doubt you will be able to. — S

Slavery with humans is on another level than slavery with animals, why? Both humans and animals (cows/chickens/pigs) can experience pain. Both can suffer and have the will to live. Why are you okay with one being suffering but not another? Superiority? Speciesist?

Yes. But for me, neither slavery nor female suffrage poses the challenge that the consumption of animal products does. I'm not torn between wanting to keep slaves or prevent women to vote and feeling that it's kind of wrong. — S

Yet the people who did condone slavery a few hundred years ago, are using the same logic you are in regards to animal consumption. Animals (black people) are inferior. Animals (black people) aren't as intelligent. You'd reject this logic for humans, but accept this for animals. Why?

Yes. And...? I'm not one of those people, or at least I try not to be, unless you're including animals, in which case, yes, I treat other animals differently to humans, because they are different. I acknowledge that inconsistency is a problem, but, depending on the context and how it is judged, how big of a problem it's considered to be will vary. You think that it's a bigger problem than I do with regards to this topic. — S

Are you actually going to explain why animals should be treated differently to humans, in regards to not violating their will to live and torturing them? All you have said is, "they are different." - Well, that explains nothing. I could go up to a slave owner and ask, Why are you treating black people this way, but not white people? And he could use your response, "They are different."

No, that's an option in the hypothetical scenario. I told you that the person can't bring themselves to abandon their morals, and yet their morals are incompatible with living a lifestyle in which they'd be happy. Not living this lifestyle makes the person miserable, or at best feeling like they're stuck in a situation where they're left unfulfilled. — S

Yes, I know indoctrination is a real thing, which usually stems from religious teachings. It will take a lot of discussion and evaluating your ethics, but they won't be stuck.

Your response is rather like me telling you that you have to evaluate your moral system and allow it to align with the consumption of animal products. Everyone has their red lines, and in the thought experiment, this is one of them. — S

If you want to tell me why eating animal products is morally correct, I'd be happy to change my mind and re-align my ethics. So far, all you have said it, "Animals are different, therefore it is ok to enslave, torture, rape and kill them."

Maybe that's true, but you don't have enough of a basis to make that judgement if you're making it based on this one issue. If I lack empathy and focus on selfish desires, based solely on my views on this one topic, then that's no more true of me than of the average person. The average person is a meat eater, and is likely similarly conflicted, at least when they think about it. — S

Yes, I'd say majority of people lack empathy. We can't even treat each other with compassion, let alone another species (chickens/pigs/cows/etc...)

As you said, you like animals, but you also like the taste of animal flesh. Despite this being in conflict with your values, you will continue to do it anyways because you value convenience and pleasure over the life of another being. — chatterbears

It's not all about values. An urge isn't a value. A desire isn't a value. A craving isn't a value. An impulse isn't a value. A conditioned behaviour or a habit isn't a value. A persons ability to change their behaviour isn't a value. — S

You: I like animals, but I like the taste of their flesh.
Greg: I like humans, but I like the feeling of when I rape them.

I could then tell Greg, you say you like animals, but you also like the feeling of raping them. Despite this being in conflict with your values (liking humans), you will continue to do it anyways because you like the feeling. Therefore, you value "pleasure" over the rights and pain of a human being.

Every action you take, whether that is an urge, desire, craving or impulse, has a value to it within your mind. I desire dessert, but I am not going to eat dessert made from cow or human flesh, because I value the lives of cows and humans more than my desire to eat dessert. You, on the other hand, do not value an animal's life over your desire/impulse/pleasure...

And besides, nothing is set in stone. I think I could change. Especially since I can see things from your point of view and am not wholly unsympathetic towards that way of looking at things. But yeah, I haven't changed enough to stop consuming animal products since the last time we had this discussion a while back. If it was as easy as clicking your fingers, then I would probably become a vegan. But it ain't that easy. What might seem to be the most ethical thing to do isn't necessarily the best thing for a person to do. My happiness is important, and selflessness has its downsides. — S

Now you value your happiness over the suffering of an animal? As you said, it is important, meaning you value it. A lot of things make me happy, but let me put it to you this way.

Situation 1: It would make me happy to buy a new belt.
Option A: Buy a belt made of cow skin (leather)
Option B: Buy a belt made from plants

Situation 2: It would make me happy to eat in a convenient manner.
Option A: Buy food made from animal flesh.
Option B: Buy food made from plants.

If I have two options, why would I choose the option that causes the most harm. If one is essentially cruelty free, while the other option is directly linked to a torture and death, why would I not choose the cruelty free option?

People say veganism is too hard. But let me give you another example.

Situation 1: Animals are being enslaved, tortured, raped, forced to live in their own waste, and killed.
Situation 2: Humans are being enslaved, tortured, raped, forced to live in their own waste, and killed.

Right now we are in situation 1, in which you are saying becoming vegan is not easy, therefore it is morally justified in continuing to support the factory farming industries.

If we were in situation 2, would you still say the same thing? If I talked to you and say, there's a cruelty-free option, that doesn't contribute to the torture, rape and death of humans, would you not switch over to that option immediately? Or would you say, "If it was as easy as clicking your fingers, I would do it."

This comes back to the core point you still haven't answered. Why do you put a higher value on human rights than animal rights? And I am not referring to the right to vote or the right to drive. I am talking about the right to freedom and the right to life. The most basic rights we give humans because we know that they have the ability to suffer, and don't want to cause them unnecessary pain.

The above shows that ethics/morality is determined by popular consensus within a particular sphere of interaction. This means that, in some places, cultures, governments, etc, it was ethical/moral to practice slavery while in others it was not. Remember, even in those african communities, there was a lot of discrimination and denial of certain rights and freedoms. Just because they were enslaved by others doesn't mean they were ideal humans in themselves.
If by being ethical/moral you are asking if certain actions are ideal (perfect), then no human activity or choices are ethical/moral. There are no ideal humans. — BrianW

You seem to be very confused here. Let's back track a bit...

You first said it is clear that humans are equal, and it is not the same for animals, hence the current inconsistencies. You then said the current justification for animal slaughter is utility, followed by saying "some animals are bred for food, some for companionship, some for work, etc..."

I then replied and told you, the same could be said about slaves. Some humans are bred into slavery (black people), some for companionship (white people), etc...

You then replied with, "morals/ethics are determined by popular consensus." - As I have said endless amounts of times on this thread, I don't care about what you think society believes about morality. I want to know what YOUR personal beliefs are, in regards to ethics/morals. I never said humans are perfect or ideal, but humans should have a consistent moral system. So here are a few questions.

1. Do you think eating animals is morally justified? Meaning: Do you think it is okay to eat animals?
2. If so, what reason do you use to justify that action?

I don't want an answer for society and how the world operates. I want to know what you personally believe.

Yet, even then when humans were relatively more ignorant compared to now, they still had edicts of ethics/morality. So, right now, is dominion over animals unethical? No. That's the way it is. I know it is not something others would approve but they don't get to decide ethics/morality for everyone else. — BrianW

So, it is your personal view that our dominion over animals is unethical? If so, why? It seems you are just following whatever the currently societal norm is, is this correct? Do you not think for yourself, and just blindly follow whatever society condones at the time? If you were in the time of slavery 200 years ago, would you have said it is not unethical to have dominion over black people, since that is what society dictates?

At best, the dominion over animals is unethical/immoral for those who believe animals deserve equal treatment to humans. This is because they have created their own sphere of interaction in which such dominion is unethical/immoral. However, other humans have other spheres of interaction in which such dominion is not. For them, even as they refine their treatment of animals according to certain values, they maintain their dominion. — BrianW

Again, you are answering for other humans. I want to know about your personal subjective beliefs. I don't care what other humans are doing. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not to talk about other people.

So, do you think your rules of ethics/morals applies to everyone indiscriminately? Absolutely not.
You (or any other individual) don't get to determine ethics/morality for others. Every person determines their own ethics/morality or, at least, the sphere of interaction they belong to for the collective ethics/morality of a given group of humans (country, culture, religion, field of study, trend, etc). — BrianW

I never claimed that my rules of ethics apply to everyone. I agree, that every person determines their own ethical system, but it needs to be logically consistent. A person's ethical stance cannot be as follows:

- Humans should not be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves.

There is a logical contradiction here, in which the person claims that humans should be treated with equality, yet he owns slaves. Irrespective of what my view on slavery is, this person is contradicting themselves within their own ethical framework.

So, this is the idea. Veganism is a logical extension of whatever ethical system you already have put in place. If your ethics are logically consistent, they will ultimately lead to Veganism. There are rare cases of people who will have logically consistent ethics, but instead of leading to Veganism, they lead to the dismantling of human rights in some form. So you only have two options: Veganism or Human Rights Degradation.

Let's actually talk about your morality. Why is it not unethical to exploit animals for food, clothing, entertainment, etc...?

So the chief question here is whether man is essentially (ontologically/physically/other) superior to animals and only by acting according to his superiority could he be considered to not be committing injustice. — SapereAude

How would you answer that question for yourself?

Here is another question: Is killing a fly a killing? Has an injustice been committed where the flyswatter slays its prey? — SapereAude

The flyswatter is not a predator. It is a weapon/tool used by a predator (human). The human could let the fly live by allowing it to go outside. There may be a practical use in killing a fly or insect (such as a mosquito), because of some disease it may spread. At that point, it is about survival and not getting transferred some deadly disease or bacteria. But all of this is far removed from what we do to farm animals. Cows/chickens/pigs/turkeys, server no threat to us. They are gentle creatures who have done no wrong, yet we exploit, rape, torture and slaughter them by the billions every year.

What do you guys think of justice/injustice as operating beyond the human realm into the world of animals (and maybe plants?) — SapereAude

That's the point of this thread, aside from your plants comment. Plants don't have a nervous system, nor do they have pain receptors or a brain to process pain. Farm animals, can process pain, similar to us humans. Therefore, why would it be okay to kill an animal for food, but not a human?

actually didn't say anything about that. In the post about laziness, in fact, I explicitly said, "Not for any ethical reasons."

For me, re metaethics, the only basis there is for morality, at least foundationally, is how someone feels about interpersonal behavior. It's not a good or bad basis. It's just factually the basis.

As I've said again and again, no non-moral stance, fact, etc. can imply any moral stance.

"Laziness" isn't a moral stance. Hence "laziness" can imply no moral stance — Terrapin Station

Is metaethics the only thing you understand about ethics? And I am not asking in a rude way, because I actually want to know. Do you understand there are different branches of ethics, such as normative ethics and applied ethics?

I've already agreed with you, that metaethics talk about the foundational beliefs for an ethical system, which is subjective. I am have been trying to talk to you for many posts now, about your normative ethics. I even asked you, how would you teach your kids right from wrong? (You still didn't answer that either).

Should I just stop asking you about your normative/applied ethics, so I don't waste my time anymore?

A person's ethical stance cannot be as follows:

- Humans should not be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves. — chatterbears

True.
But it can be as follows:

- Some humans should not be owned as property.
- Other humans could be owned as property.
- I own black people as slaves.

Which is how it was before we got a bit enlightened.

Again, you are answering for other humans. I want to know about your personal subjective beliefs. I don't care what other humans are doing. I am in this forum to talk to people directly, not to talk about other people. — chatterbears

I think 'personal' ethics/morality is a misnomer, or better yet, an oxymoron. The very idea of ethics/morality is ingrained in the value of relationships or interactions with others. Even ideas such as mistreating oneself is based on the concept of a collective humanity which has certain values and standards and, to which, every human individual is expected to adhere to.
So, for me, the idea of a personal ethics/morality which is distinctly separate from that of all others does not compute. However, due to segregation of various collectives within the human whole, it becomes possible to have different standards of ethics/morality for the separated groups. Nonetheless, the ethics/morality applies to a collective.

Also, your initial question was about the ethics of 'our' dominion over animals. And, I've already given my personal opinions about that.

Right now, there are plant based "burgers" out there, such as Beyond Meat or The Impossible Burger. I eat The Impossible Burger regularly, and it tastes quite good. — chatterbears

The problem here is that products like that don't taste that good to meat eaters. I like them, you like them, but we're already vegetarians.

Is metaethics the only thing you understand about ethics? — chatterbears

No. But the metaethical facts I've been mentioning can't be just ignored when we're talking about ethics from any other angle.

I am have been trying to talk to you for many posts now, about your normative ethics. — chatterbears

I explained earlier that I don't do ethics by any sort of overarching principle, because I think that's a bad idea that always leads to ridiculous stances (like antinatalism, for example).

how would you teach your kids right from wrong? — chatterbears

I didn't see you ask that. I don't believe that one can teach someone right and wrong. Right and wrong have to be a way that someone feels about behavior, and you can't teach someone (how) to feel. That doesn't mean that people aren't influenced, but just how they'll be influenced is unpredictable.

What I do is stress deliberative introspection, and stress that of course one's moral authenticity has to be balanced against the risks of bucking various societal norms. (For example, if one feels that it's morally permissible to commit murder, then one would need to balance acting in accord with that with the possible/probably social repercussions.)

It can also be as follows:

- Some humans should not be raped.
- Other humans could be raped.
- I rape black people.

Do you accept that as well?

Also, it seems you will not answer the rest of the questions I had for you. Maybe you can answer these.

How would you define ethics?
How would you define personal ethics?
How do you differentiate between right and wrong?

The problem here is that products like that don't taste that good to meat eaters. I like them, you like them, but we're already vegetarians. — Jake

Doesn't matter. If I created an artificial vagina that men could buy to deter them from raping women, would you accept their reasoning if they told you, "But this artificial vagina doesn't feel like the real thing. Therefore, I will go back to raping women."

An immoral action is immoral, irrespective of their rationalization to continue the behavior. Taste, convenience, laziness, etc.... They are all really bad excuses to continue an immoral action. I bet slave owners used the same excuses before they finally decided to act like human beings with compassion and empathy.

Also, small correct. I am Vegan, not vegetarian. Big difference there, in regards to what you are actually supporting. Vegetarians still support the dairy industry, which is arguably the most cruel of them all.

No. But the metaethical facts I've been mentioning can't be just ignored when we're talking about ethics from any other angle. — Terrapin Station

I've never ignored those facts. Matter of fact, I actually acknowledged the fact that ethics are derived from a subjective perspective, at the metaethical level.

I explained earlier that I don't do ethics by any sort of overarching principle, because I think that's a bad idea that always leads to ridiculous stances (like antinatalism, for example). — Terrapin Station

I could say you have a ridiculous stance by refuses to take any stance at all in regards to having a normative perspective.

I didn't see you ask that. I don't believe that one can teach someone right and wrong. Right and wrong have to be a way that someone feels about behavior, and you can't teach someone (how) to feel. That doesn't mean that people aren't influenced, but just how they'll be influenced is unpredictable.

What I do is stress deliberative introspection, and stress that of course one's moral authenticity has to be balanced against the risks of bucking various societal norms. (For example, if one feels that it's morally permissible to commit murder, then one would need to balance acting in accord with that with the possible/probably social repercussions.) — Terrapin Station

So if your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc.... committed murder, and told you about it, you would just say, "Ok no problem. Just make sure you don't get caught because you may encounter social repercussions." - Or what if we changed it from murder to rape? If your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc... raped somebody else, and told you about it, you wouldn't tell them it was 'wrong' to do?

Lastly. What if your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc... got raped themselves, and told you about it. Would you tell them, "Well, there's no such thing as right or wrong. And if the person who raped you thought it was right to do so, they have their reasons for that."

I could say you have a ridiculous stance by refuses to take any stance at all in regards to having a normative perspective. — chatterbears

Sure. Different people think that different things are ridiculous (obviously).

So if your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc.... committed murder, and told you about it, you would just say, "Ok no problem. Just make sure you don't get caught because you may encounter social repercussions." - Or what if we changed it from murder to rape? If your son/daughter/friend/relative/etc... raped somebody else, and told you about it, you wouldn't tell them it was 'wrong' to do? — chatterbears

I would tell them my view. Telling someone a moral view doesn't give them that moral view. One can only have a moral view when one feels some way or other about behavior. Telling someone something doesn't make them feel the way that you feel.

Would you tell them, "Well, there's no such thing as right or wrong. — chatterbears

"There's no such thing as right or wrong" isn't actually my view, though. My view is that right and wrong are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior. There definitely are such things. There definitely are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior, so I wouldn't deny that there are.

I would tell them my view. Telling someone a moral view doesn't give them that moral view. One can only have a moral view when one feels some way or other about behavior. Telling someone something doesn't make them feel the way that you feel. — Terrapin Station

"There's no such thing as right or wrong" isn't actually my view, though. My view is that right and wrong are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior. There definitely are such things. There definitely are ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior, so I wouldn't deny that there are. — Terrapin Station

Again, how would you respond to your daughter/friend/family member who has just been raped. Would you be supportive? Or would you say "if he felt right in his action to rape you, that's just his interpersonal behaviors."

What I am trying to get at here, is you must have some sort of mechanism you use to differentiate a good action from a bad action. You may (or may not) believe rape is a bad action, because of Reason A. I want to know what that Reason A actually is. Is that Reason A something such as, "causing harm to others"?

Ethics is not perfection.
If it were so, then those who are ethical would be perfect, no matter the period in time or circumstance. No humans are perfect. Ethics is aimed at harmonious relations/interactions. But, because circumstances change, then what resolves into harmony in one circumstance may not translate into another. For example, there was a time when a portion of humanity was okay with enslavement and inequality of others (this includes all forms of mistreatment, rape included) and it reflected in their associations, but, at present, that is not the case. And yet, in both of those periods, that humanity had ethical/moral guidelines. Your ethics/morality seems to ignore the learning curve. We can learn to be better but, knowledge does not just magically appear nor does it instantly manifest as action. It takes time and effort, and human history is evidence of that.
Humans (collectively) are doing what they think is best for themselves. At some point in the future, perhaps near or distant (relative to different communities), the ethics/morality you're referring to will become ingrained in all of humanity. At the moment, it is not. At the moment, it is not the ethics/morality of all humans.

I think what you asking is, if we, as a collective humanity, could revise our ethical/moral guidelines in a way that is more compassionate or less harmful to animals? I think it is possible. However, presently, not everybody shares the same concerns. And, no one has the right to impose their ethics/morality upon others.

How would you define ethics? — chatterbears

The guidelines which define the practice of harmonious relations/interactions.

How would you define personal ethics? — chatterbears

The ethical guidelines which a person follows.

How do you differentiate between right and wrong? — chatterbears

Right is that which causes harmony and wrong is that which causes disharmony.

Ethics/morality is relative.

How do you mean “relative”?

I mean ethical/moral guidelines keep transforming just as we transform as a society.

Ah, I see. I would have called that subjective, relative sounds like they change depending on there position to one another....

Your ethics/morality seems to ignore the learning curve. We can learn to be better but, knowledge does not just magically appear nor does it instantly manifest as action. It takes time and effort, and human history is evidence of that. — BrianW

How are my ethics ignoring a learning curve? We are a selfish species who was worse in the past, but we are still bad in the present day.

Humans (collectively) are doing what they think is best for themselves. At some point in the future, perhaps near or distant (relative to different communities), the ethics/morality you're referring to will become ingrained in all of humanity. At the moment, it is not. At the moment, it is not the ethics/morality of all humans. — BrianW

.

You are, again, talking about other people. From this point on, can you please refrain from talking about human ethics as a society, or what other people think. I want to know what YOU (BrianW) think. So as a follow up question to this point, are you Vegan?

Right is that which causes harmony and wrong is that which causes disharmony. — BrianW

Follow up question. Harmony among the majority? Or harmony among everybody?

Example: Slavery caused harmony among the majority (white people). Does this mean slavery is right? If today in 2018, there was a culture out there that still practiced slavery, would you say it is "right" for that culture to do so, as long as it brings them harmony?