So you are not actually interested in the philosopical ethical discussion as much as you are interested in my personal choises in the matter. Well sorry to dissappoint you, but I'm not gonna let you know. Especially not since you make unwarrented assumptions about me clearly demonstrated by your statement " I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet." — Tomseltje

Again, another deflection. You pointed to other places in the world that do not have access to a plant-based diet. I then responded and stated 'I want to know why you have not changed your diet', because I can reasonably assume you have a grocery store near you. And whatever your reasoning is, it can lead to a philosophical discussion. Such as, "I think animals have a lower level of consciousness." - We can then get into why that is or isn't a valid justification to kill something for food.

except Veganism has scientific evidence to support its claim. And philosophically, I can use reason and logical consistency to back up my position. Missionaries do nothing of the sort, as they have automated responses that they were told to say. I have done research and created my own perspective by myself.

Admittedly it is much harder to apply one type of argument to multiple people, such as in this thread. In person discussions have went much more smoothly for me, as I tend to focus on what one person finds important and work from there. If they are health freaks, I can point them to the health benefits. If they are environmental minds, I will supply them with the evidence for that. There’s no one good argument for Veganism, as I think there are many. Just really depends on your audience, their current scientific knowledge and what they are willing to accept.

Agreed. Which is why I have posted my google doc multiple times throughout this thread. But even with that, people throughout this thread have appealed to God or have stated things like “Animals feel pain in a different way than we do, so they should be treated differently.”

Arguing with meat eaters is like playing whac-a-mole. Once you get rid of one justification, another one pops up.

For me, it's much easier to defend veganism on utilitarian grounds: it's good for our health, it's good for the ecological basis of civilization, and it simply makes you feel good — Uber

In this thread, as well as other people I’ve talked to in person, they have rejected the health evidence. They think it is just as healthy to include meat into your diet. They reject the environmental evidence, and state that farming vegetables causes as much harm as farming animals. They also say the opposite in regards to what feels good. They have actually used it as a justification for continuing to eat meat, which is “eating meat gives me pleasure.”

I switch to different arguments depending on how much science and fact they are willing to reject. As you said, people suddenly turn into health and environmental experts when the topic of Veganism is brought up, while rejecting the actual scientific evidence.

I find it most effective to argue from a consistency standpoint. And this can be done through universal rights or even an empathy/compassion perspective. Or you don’t have to bring any of that up and just simply ask “why are you ok killing one living being but not another?” - From there you push for consistency within their own subjective views. This leaves no room to talk about what science they want to reject for health or environmental factors.

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but even those animals suffer, eventually they all die. Allowing animals to live without harm or death is not within the capabilities of humans. All humans can do is reduce the suffering. They can't prevent all suffering, nor death. — Tomseltje

Preventing suffering is one thing. Causing suffering is another. Eating meat CAUSES suffering. Not sure how you don't see the difference here? I am not suggesting we prevent all suffering from every animal in existence. I am suggesting that we prevent any suffering that we are causing them directly, if reasonably possible.

And to say that even the farm animal suffers because they eventually die, is like saying us humans suffer, because we eventually all die. That's not even remotely comparable to what factory farms are doing, which is direct harm, torture and abrupt death caused by humans.

My objection was to the practicality, I didn't claim there weren't 100% vegan alternatives, I claimed that (for most I've seen) it was inpractical to obtain them. Perhaps they are easier to aquire where you live. Did you consider people living in countries that banned GMO? Are you aware that some supplements sold as vegan still contain substances of animal origin without this being mentioned on the product? — Tomseltje

Is it impractical to obtain plant-based products where you live? Because as i have stated before, every single person I have talked to, owns a computer. They also live near a grocery store, which sells fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and grains. It is as simple as going down a different isle, nothing more. And yes, I acknowledge that some places have it harder to achieve a plant-based diet, but everyone I have talked to does not. So to refer to other places is a deflection, as I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet.

The main vitamin that Vegans need to worry about is B12. Which can be found in fortified foods, or supplementation. And yes, I am aware that we cannot know 100% of where our food/vitamins are coming from or how they are being created. But the point is, do the best that you can with as much research as you can, and make an informed decision. If you find out later than the supplement you have been taking for B12 was actually created from substances of animal origin, look for another supplement.

We can't even get past the idea that eating meat is immoral and worse for the environment, let alone which supplements are better than others. And as far as practicality, is the vegetable isle too far from the bacon? Practicality isn't a valid justification for people who live near a grocery store. Which i can reasonably assume, all of us in this thread do live near a grocery store.

Here goes the second of your two regular vacillations.First you switch between death per se and pain/suffering to suit your argument, then you switch to the environmental impact of factory farming when we talk about the impact of farming vegetables. Please try to stick to one issue at a time so we can determine what your line of argument actually is. — Pseudonym

Pain and death go hand in hand, as they are both causing harm. Environmental impact is also in reference to harm. They are all regarding harm, so I am not sure why you are saying I am not sticking to one issue. The issue I care about is NOT causing more harm than we need to. If you want to put it on a scale, let's just say it this way, for the sake of argument.

Meat farming: Causes a 9 out of 10
Vegetable farming: Causes a 5 out of 10

Even though both cause harm, there is a significant difference between the two. And if possible, we should get rid of the one causing the most harm, and then work on making the second one better. Vegetable farming is a perfect utopia that is free from causing any harm. But it is better than what we are currently doing in factory farms. That's just an objective scientific fact.

To be clear absolutely no-one here is suggesting that modern factory farming of animals is fine and needs no intervention to make it better, so would you please stick to the argument that's actually being had, not the one you'd like to have. we're all trying to debate the morality of eating meat, the killing and consumption of another species of animal. — Pseudonym

You may be, but other people haven't stated they care at all to improve factory farming. But again, why improve it when it is not necessary to begin with? It's like saying 200 years ago, "Hey we should improve our slavery techniques and practices. It's a bit cruel, so let's be a bit nicer. We can still own humans and property and sell them like furniture, but let's just improve the business a bit." - How about no? Something that is unnecessary (which causes harm) needs to be removed, not "improved".

There is no way the killing of one wild deer causes more environmental harm and animal death than the farming of five acres of legumes, so if you're using an environmental harm or total sentient deaths argument, then you should be advocating wild game and grass fed, free-range meat as part of a balanced diet. — Pseudonym

I agree with you. But to feed 7.6 Billion people, almost a billion of which don't even have the proper food to live a healthy life, we need to create food on a mass scale. This is why we breed and kill 50+ Billion farm animals every year, to feed as many people as we can. If it were possible for all 7.6 Billion of us to kill one deer and live off the protein for months, it would be much better than both vegetable farming and meat farming. But since that is not possible, vegetable farming is the lesser of the two harmful industries. And again, I am not asking for some utopia. I am asking for better than the current. And I am asking for consistency in any justifications that would be used to cause unnecessary harm.

But as a side question, let me ask you this. Would it be possible for you to grow some of your vegetables, grains, nuts, etc...? And whatever you cannot get, buy at a local store?

It clearly was not necessary for their survival for the wolf pack to kill those 18 Elk, they just left them there. So let's stick to the philosophical issue. Would you incarcerate or kill those wolves (in the same way as we would incarcerate or kill a psychopath) in order to prevent them from killing more elk that were beyond their food requirements? — Pseudonym

As I have stated before multiple times in this thread, animals cannot analyze moral actions in a complex way like we can. But even so, we do not know the exactly reason for surplus killing. Researchers say that animals surplus kill whenever they can, in order to procure food for offspring and others, to gain valuable killing experience, and to create the opportunity to eat the carcass later when they are hungry again.

As stated before, animals tend to do things based on survival instincts. Yes, sometimes they can commit unnecessary harm, but they do not have the intellectual capacity to deeply analyze their actions on a level that we can. We, as humans, have a higher intellectual capacity. And with that higher capacity comes a higher obligation to living beings around us. Since we can conceptualize the harm and effect that we have on the environment and everything around us, we should be more conscious of our decisions and if they can be improved. So in the same way I wouldn't expect a 3 year old to understand a deep level of right and wrong, I wouldn't expect it from a wolf either.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't incarcerate the wolves because of everything I said in the previous paragraph. We incarcerate humans because they have a higher ability in thought, and can understand a deeper level of right and wrong. We cannot ask the wolves what their reasoning was for killing so many elk. But we can ask a psychopath his reasoning for why he killed so many people. And we would incarcerate that person to prevent him from causing more harm to other people. Wolves, and most animals, based their decisions on survival. Humans do not. And grow adult humans have a higher understanding of morality, and therefore are held to a higher accountability.

And as a last thought, I wouldn't see a problem with protecting your farm animals from the harm of other predators. And by farm animals, I don't mean the ones you would raise just to kill for bacon. I am referring to people who own farm animals and allow them to live without harm or death. These people usually see their animals as part of their family. And if their family is being harmed, it would be a form of self-defense. Similar to a person defending his daughter from being attacked by a wolf. Self defense is different than infringing on two animals in nature. Otherwise you'd have the problem of trying to decipher whether or not wolves are killing for survival, or are committing a surplus killing. Initially, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, until the damage has already been done.

Well yes. We went over this. Well-being or flourishing is the generic goal. And then the "contradiction" is between personal self-interest and collective self-interest. — apokrisis

This is incorrect. People can be contradictory within their own personal subjective beliefs. It has nothing to do with the collective. As stated before, a person could justify their action based on REASON A, but then reject an action done to them based on REASON A. This is an internally contradictory position within the person's own ethical framework. You cannot hold simultaneous beliefs that contradict each other.

And just to clarify, flourishing is a goal, not a justification. The thing that people use for eating meat is a justification. And that justification needs to be consistent, NOT contradictory. Goals can have exceptions, but justifications based on unnecessary harmful acts, cannot.

Your monotonic absolutism makes it impossible for you to properly envisage that - even if in specific instances, as in killing in self defense, you feel forced to yield the issue. — apokrisis

There is necessary harm and unnecessary harm. That's the key difference here. Necessary harm can be an exception to the goal of maximizing well-being, such as in self-defense. But again, this is reference to a GOAL, not how people use justifications to commit unnecessary harm.

When you are committing harm, you need to evaluate whether or not it is a necessary harm. After that, are there alternatives to this that cause less harm. Then, how easily is this alternative to achieve. I think most people agree that eating meat is an unnecessary harm, but still use a plethora of justifications to continue doing it. These justifications need to be consistent within their own subjective perspective. If they are not, then they are wrong on two fronts. Wrong for not recognizing it as an unnecessary harm. And wrong for not being internally consistent within their own justification being used to commit this unnecessary harm.

Remember, maximize well-being as much as possible. This isn't absolute in any way, because there can be many gray areas to this goal. Similar to health, the main goal is to maximize the body's condition. But there can be many gray areas to this, such as a person who needs to consume more sugar sometimes due to a low level of blood glucose. Generally, health professionals advise against a large sugar intake, but a person with diabetes may need to sometimes consume a large amount of sugar to raise their blood glucose level. This is a necessary 'harm' the body NEEDS in order to survive. Just as self-defense is a necessary harm the body NEEDS in order to survive.

But again, I am never referring to absolutes in any sense, when regarding the goal. The only absolute, if you even want to call it that, would be have internal consistency within your justifications of moral actions that cause harm. So just like I would accept 'self-defense' as a valid justification for causing harm, I would also accept someone else using the same justification against me if I were to attack them. But this is never the case with meat eaters. As their justifications seem to be completely random and sometimes silly, such as "I eat meat because I like the taste". Ok, would you let someone eat you because they like the taste of human flesh? No. There's your inconsistency. And again, diet is something that is easily changeable. Other things are much harder, such as buying eco friendly transportation or growing crops yourself.

And so in turn, a felt natural contradiction that ethical reasoning ought to aim to balance. no? — apokrisis

Not sure what you mean here. Can you rephrase and clarify?

Like you agreed about self-defence for example. — apokrisis

Self-defense is justified because that living being's rights have been violated and needs to protect itself out of necessity. Well-being is still at work here, as someone's well-being has been diminished. And again, this is a necessary harm (self-defense) that is taking place for survival. Eating meat is not a necessary harm in order to survive, therefore it is not justified. But even if we don't use necessary vs unnecessary, people cannot even be consistent within their own justifications for why they can eat meat. If you're going to deploy a justification for harm, at least do so consistently.

I'd say this suffers from a impoverished view of happiness. — Moliere

Well you didn't clarify. All you said was, "what makes human beings happy rather than what is required to survive." - And what makes human beings happy, doesn't mean those things are moral or immoral. Therefore, the justification "what makes human beings happy" is not valid or consistent to base your actions on.

Namely that we are moral agents, and if aliens were sufficiently human-like to be moral agents then they'd be included and not treated like beasts. — Moliere

Some humans aren't moral agents, such as mentally disabled people; so there's your first problem. And if you appeal to species, an Alien species could come down and farm humans for food, and you'd have to be okay with that based on the same justification you use to farm animals.

I don't believe there are moral foundations at all. — Moliere

What I meant by this was, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? What mechanism do you use to morally justify an action as right/correct?

My argument was against your OP - where you argued that we should be consistent with our feelings. And what is obvious then is that we all could have different kinds of feeling about the issue of killing and eating animals. — apokrisis

Which creates an internal contradiction. The point of my OP was to display the consistency of our ethics. The compassion, empathy & consistency standpoint reaches the goal in a similar way as the universal rights perspective. They are just two different arguments, structured very similarly.

So in the same way that everyone has different kinds of feeling toward killing and eating animals, they also have different kinds of feeling toward racism, sexism and other things. The point is not, whether the belief/action is wrong in and of itself. The point is whether or not people have an internally consistent position based on their justification they have used to fuel their beliefs or actions.

So a person can think they are justified in their actions or beliefs, but that's where internal consistency comes in. No racist, sexist, slave owner or meat eater, are internally consistent. All these positions are based on unjust and invalid justifications based on discrimination.

My moral system is based on the consideration of the well-being of sentient beings. Racism, sexism and unnecessary meat eating, all goes against this system. Because if you consider the well-being of sentient beings, you would do your best to maximize their well-being, not diminish it.

I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food — Tomseltje

Have you done any research on the harm caused from factory farming?

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

Click the environmental tab.

It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin. — Tomseltje

This is false. There are Vegan supplements, as well as fortified foods. Some of which are GMO.

That weight alone isn't enough, and that species alone isn't enough, and so on, and so forth, does not mean that a collection of qualities together as a whole isn't enough. — Sapientia

So a collection of bad reasoning, when put together, somehow creates a good whole reasoning? This makes no sense.

An argument can consistent of multiple justifications, but each justification needs to be valid in order to be part of the argument. Otherwise, the argument becomes flawed on some level. For example. I can say, "I believe women shouldn't have the right to vote because of these reasons: They have long hair, they have never been president, they are not physically strong like men." All 3 of these justifications are completely invalid and have very poor reasoning. But according to you, if you put all 3 of these justifications (parts) together, it somehow makes the entire argument as a whole, a valid or correct one? And if someone objects to it, you accuse them of appealing to the fallacy of composition.

You give an example of a plane, person in the crowd, and sand. Where is the example that applies to me? Use the same structure and apply how that fallacy works with what I am apparently doing.

If I don't need to point to a single trait, as opposed to a set of traits, then why should I do so? Because you'd prefer it that way? Because it suits your strategy? Not good enough. If you can provide a good enough reason for me to answer any differently than I have done so thus far, then I will oblige you. — Sapientia

Because that is how two people discuss and debate a position. One side presents reasons for why they believe something, and the other side can respond. You have presented ZERO reasons for why you believe animal slaughter is justified, other than saying "I cannot pinpoint anything specific."

So in the same way you cannot have a productive conversation with a racist who says, "I cannot pinpoint anything specific that justifies my discrimination of blacks vs whites", I also cannot have a productive conversation with you. If you're unwilling to provide a coherent reason/justification, I cannot have a discussion with you. Simple as that.

I'm done responding to your statements, so don't quote me anymore. Feel free to respond to the other Vegans in this thread, like NKBJ. You simply lack the understanding of why consistency matters, and I can't keep explaining it to you over and over again. And again, as stated earlier, you have no valid or coherent justification for why you are okay with animals being slaughtered unnecessarily for food. Other than saying something nonsensical like this:

It can be summed up by saying that an equality in kind, or on some level, or in some respects, doesn't necessarily entail equal treatment. And that any relevant differences in circumstance and severity ought to be factored into appropriate treatment. The goal should be to strive for appropriate and proportional treatment, rather than equal treatment. — Sapientia

I'd like someone else who reads what he wrote to explain how that makes any sense? And how does it answer my question, "What justification/reason do you have that allows you to be okay with unnecessary animal slaughter for food, but not unnecessary human slaughter for food?" - He has still never answered this question, and I am starting to think he is trolling at this point.

Both options are necessary to live the way that I want to live, which involves eating meat and vegetables. So I choose both. I can live with the death of plants and other animals for the sake of my personal gratification, so I must be an evil monster. But it turns out that being an evil monster has it's upshots. I get to enjoy the food I like, and you get to enjoy feeling superior. It's win-win. — Sapientia

Are you admitting defeat? Appealing to personal gratification is probably the worst justification you have used so far.

So does a dog deserve to eat meat? Or would you force it to be vegetarian under your bill of universal sentient rights? — apokrisis

The deserved rights I was referring to were about liberty, pain and freedom. But does a dog "deserve" to eat meat, isn't the proper question. The proper question would be, "Can a dog survive on a vegetarian diet?" - The answer is yes. I feed my dogs v-dog: https://v-dog.com/

I have even consulted with multiple vets, as well as done a lot of research, to ensure my dog would get its proper nutrients from a vegetarian diet. And it can. And if we run into any problems, we can do blood work every year or two, to make sure my dog has the proper levels it should have.

Though of course if ones position is that it is unethical to farm any animal for consuption under any condition, then the two other questions don't arise, but I doubt that is the case with chatterbears, since he doesn't seem to object to the ethics of growing unconcious animals for consumption. — Tomseltje

Correction here. The proper term would be sentient, not conscious. So can you point to a non-sentient animal that we would raise for consumption? But even if you could, I'd say it would only be ethical if it was necessary. Which, raising any animals for food (in this current day) is NOT necessary. We have plenty of plant-based alternatives that can sustain our survival perfectly.

Other animals can't understand or relate to life, liberty, personal security, freedom, slavery, torture, and degrading treatment, to the unique degree that we do, so it wouldn't make sense to treat them as if they did. — Sapientia

This is just completely false. You can't ignore facts about reality to feed your inconsistent position. Animals can experience mental distress, similar to how humans can. You think an animal is in a better mental state confined to a cage, or walking around in an open field?

There's also an inappropriateness in your suggested application of those concepts with regard to other animals. For example, keeping chickens on a free range farm is not slavery, it's more like serfdom. Slaughter is not torture, it's execution. And what's degrading treatment for humans isn't necessarily so for other animals. — Sapientia

Animals on typical organic and “free-range” farms often spend much of their time confined to crowded sheds or mud-filled pens, just as animals on conventional factory farms do. Slaughter is a violation of the 'right to life'.

So, yes, plants can't feel pain but you should feel the pain of death and through such knowledge grasp the value of a plant's life. — TheMadFool

I don't even understand what this means. I should care to not kill the plant because it has a life, just as I have a life? I specifically stated that we should take more consideration for sentient life, because sentient life can experience pain and suffering, while plants cannot.

Also, as a side question. What do you base your moral foundation on. The bible? The mind of God? Etc...

Also note that need, for myself, is not just brute necessity, but is defined by what makes human beings happy rather than what is required to survive. — Moliere

This is just as flawed as appealing to 'preference'. What makes you happy does not say anything about what is right or wrong.

If it make me happy to cheat on my wife, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to torture animals, am I then justified in doing so? If it makes me happy to exploit animals for my taste pleasure, am I then justified in doing so? No. No. And no.

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. — Sapientia

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is clearly fallacious, because vehicles are often made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.

How am I doing this by deploying a consistent test toward each justification that people use for killing animals? I am not saying, eliminating one invalid trait (part) means their (whole) position is invalid. I am saying, if we go one-by-one and assess the validity of each trait, and all the traits they point to are invalid, then clearly their entire position is invalid. But I don't start with "their whole argument is invalid because one trait is invalid." - I start with, "Let's go one-by-one and see if each trait is valid and logically consistent. If each treat is not, we can eliminate it and move on to the next trait."

This is nothing remotely similar to the fallacy of composition. Because I am saying, let's asses each PART. And if each and every PART is invalid, then the WHOLE becomes invalid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.