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.

But if they are human rights, then they are human rights.....Now you just risk leading people into legalistic confusion. — apokrisis

At one point in time, women and black people did not have the right to vote. Just because a group of beings doesn't have particular rights, or it is not legal as of right now, doesn't mean that is how it should be.

"Human" rights got transferred and applied to dogs, in the US. Currently, 46 of the 50 states have enacted felony penalties for certain forms of animal abuse, while others are charged as a misdemeanor offense. Either way, we recognized that "Human" doesn't necessarily mean it ONLY applies to human. The principle of the rights themselves, should apply to other living beings, such as dogs. Similarly, black people should be allowed to vote, as well as women.

And they are lesser rights that pragmatically recognise the difference in sentience. So that in itself becomes a problem with this legalistic turn in your approach. — apokrisis

And these animal rights should still hold true to the same 3 rights I have referenced.

- Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
- Freedom from Slavery
- Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment

We already have legal punishment for violating these rights in regards to certain animals (dogs, cats, etc...). But these rights are not also deployed to other animals, such as cows/chickens/pigs.

Chickens do not have the right to life, liberty or personal security. They are not free from slavery and are not free from torture or degrading treatment. These rights are clearly violated by our factory farming industry, yet the same rights are granted to animals like dogs.

But even if NO animals were granted these rights, you (humans) would still need to give a valid justification for why these rights should only be granted to humans and not granted to other animals.

But that is now a far worse argument. All humans may be animals, but not all animals are human. So it would be logically inconsistent to grant human rights to non-human animals. — apokrisis

That is irrelevant. You would still need to explain why you deserve those rights, but an animal does not. Because in many cultures, especially in the west, we grant these 3 rights to dogs. People can actually get locked up for abusing a dog, so people have recognized that dogs deserve these same basic rights. And that anyone who infringes on the dog's rights should be punished.

So why stop at dogs? Why not grant other animals the same rights as well? You'd have to specify the trait in which it is justified for a human to get these basic rights, but not other animals.

I think there's an easily exploitable flaw in your trifecta, which is that you're relying upon empathy. And many of us don't have the emotional reservoir to be empathic towards every living thing -- not even every living thing that experiences pain. — Moliere

People keep misinterpreting what I mean by the moral trifecta. I am not stating that most people adhere to this moral trifecta, because in reality I would say most people do not. You don't need empathy for other animals to lead to Veganism. All you need is empathy for humans, and logically consistency. And I would also argue, you may not even need empathy, but could replace empathy with a foundation for basic universal human rights. So just focus on these two things.

Do you believe in the most basic universal human rights? And I am not even referring to all 30 articles of human rights. For the sake of argument, let's just say these:

- Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
- Freedom from Slavery
- Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment

If you believe that every human deserves at least those 3 articles of human rights, that ultimately leads to veganism. You don't even need to bring empathy into the discussion. Because after you acknowledge those 4 articles of human rights, it now comes down to ethical consistency.

Why do you deserve those 3 articles of rights, but an animal does not? Whatever that trait/quality may be, if it were true of a human, would you then be willing to violate the rights of that human? Simple consistency test.

How many times have you been on holiday this year? — Sapientia

Zero. Why is that relevant?

Skin colour is not a relevant distinction. Species is, unless we're talking about a species which is sufficiently human-like. — Sapientia

Both are not a relevant distinction that would condone mistreatment of the living being. Species and skin color, are both a form of discrimination against how one looks.

It also isn't a given that your feelings or moral judgement in relation to this matter are somehow more authoritative than mine or those of anyone else. — Sapientia

My consistency within my own internal ethical model is what is superior to your perspective. You cannot justify an action in one context, but then reject the same justification in another context. That is called inconsistency, or put more simply, hypocrisy.

It's sufficient to make that distinction based on whatever it is about chickens which makes them sufficiently chicken-like and insufficiently human-like. — Sapientia

So again, what is the distinction? After how many pages of this thread, you still have not answered that question. Why do you get to justify killing a living being, based on superfluous reasoning? Is it that the chicken has feathers? Is it the beak? Is it the chicken's intelligence level? Is it the height of the chicken?

You'll never answer, and until you do, I don't see a point in responding anymore. You cannot even pinpoint your reasoning for why you get to justify killing another living being. That in and of itself, is inferior to my morality.

If buying a bag of carrots does as much harm as eating a snail. Then should we not identify a real behavior that will actually fulfill your stated moral objective: WITHOUT the harm that is contained within the purchase of the carrots? — Marcus de Brun

Do not equate snails to carrots. It is objectively true that less harm would be caused from eating a carrot, than eating meat. That's just a fact. Also, you kept stating my position as a vegetarian, when it is in fact a Vegan. Vegan means the consumption of NO animal products, whatsoever. People who are Vegan, are also aware of other animal harm, such as palm oil, animal testing in cosmetics and leather hand bags. All of which are unnecessary and have better alternatives.

However I do agree that we should try to limit the harm that we cause, and this cannot be achieved by vegetarianism, no more than global warming can be addressed through the purchase of electric cars. — Marcus de Brun

To correct you again, it is Veganism (not Vegetarianism). But also, you're really going to tell me that a Vegan world would produce the same amount of harm as an omnivorous world? That's just demonstrably false.

Just from the environmental standpoint, emissions from the production of beef and lamb are 250 times higher than those from legumes, per gram of protein, and pork and poultry are 40 times higher than legumes. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that confined farm animals generate more than 450 million tonnes of manure annually, 3 times more raw waste than generated by Americans. When manure is repeatedly over-applied to farm land, it causes dangerous levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water supply. In such excessive amounts, nitrogen robs water of oxygen and destroys aquatic life. Also, the contribution of the livestock sector to global greenhouse gas emissions exceeds that of transportation. Do a little research, you can look up this stuff yourself. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Aside from the environment hazards, what about the 50+ billion animals we kill every year? To compare that harm to some harm caused from eating a carrot, is absurd.

Fundamentally nothing has changed only the menu. — Marcus de Brun

Again, this is just you lacking the awareness and knowledge of how much factory farms negatively contribute to climate change and health risks. Not to mention, again, the animal holocaust we have condoned every year that passes.

But I didn't use intelligence. In fact I said intelligence is not a good basis for moral feeling. — Moliere

I wasn't saying you have used intelligence as a justification. I was stating that other people have (in this thread), and this is how the argument follows.

The difference between me and you and a cow is that you and I are human. That's it. — Moliere

From what you're saying, this sounds like speciesism, correct?

Anecdotal experience is not evidence. — Moliere

Agreed, but it is based on deductive reasoning. In the same way I can state that, it is more probable than not, that over 90% of the human population would rather live than die.

What is flawed, I think, is your moral trifecta. If you want to argue for veganism then you need to include more than mere empathy -- because empathy is indeed influenced by cultural norms. — Moliere

Which is why the most important part of the trifecta is logical consistency. If you are a believer in universal human rights, that ultimately leads to Veganism. Because you cannot justify the discrimination of animals without internally contradicting your own position, as I have pointed out multiple times on this thread.

Person A believes it is okay to kill animals because animals are less intelligent.
Person A believes it is NOT okay to kill humans because humans are less intelligent.

These are two contradictory statements. One justifies killing based on intelligence level, while the other does NOT. Because as I have asked before, for this specific example, if you took a human (severely autistic) who had the intelligence level of being no greater than a cow, would we now be justified in killing them? No. Therefore using the justification of "lesser intelligence" to kill something, is invalid and inconsistent.

This is evidence that you're not so good at judging internal consistency. — Sapientia

Do you only just make statements without explaining a word or deploying a counter argument of any kind?

To function in the world is immoral, it is only fashion or fad that prefers one morality over another at a given moment in time. — Marcus de Brun

So you think every evil is equivalent and we shouldn't waste our time trying to better our society to reduce pain and suffering? Because your stance seems to be, "No matter how good I try to be, I will always be contributing to evil in some way". Which is true, but highly irrelevant to this conversation. Just because we cannot reach perfection, which involves no harm to any living being, doesn't mean we cannot strive to do better. We should change our actions for the better, as much as possible. And for most people, it is possible to change their diet to an all plant-based diet. For most people, it is NOT possible to afford an electric car that doesn't produce CO2. There's a big difference here. What is easily changeable and possible, versus what is not.

I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for better than what we currently have. Similarly to the prohibition on slavery, or right now, the prohibition on factory farms.

I could list the similarities between a slingshot and a rocket launcher, yet they're markedly different regardless, and should be treated differently too. — Sapientia

You're comparing two items. I am comparing two situations of similar discrimination which people use multiple reasons to justify condoning it. How many reasons have you used to justify eating animals? Probably 5+, correct?

This is a failure to address my related point about it not being necessary to express a precise distinction. We can tell the difference, like we can tell the difference between a heap of sand and just a few grains. — Sapientia

Yes, we can tell the difference between a heap of sand and a few grains, just like we can tell the difference between a cow and a human. But what matters is the treatment between the two living beings. Similarly to, we can tell the difference between a black person and a white person, but how do we treat each of them? And if we treat one worse than the other, what trait are we using to justify the discrimination?

You still haven't provided a valid or logical response to this question, probably because you cannot answer it. It is necessary to express a precise distinction, when we are talking about why we would treat one living being differently than other. If you cannot pinpoint that trait difference, you have no grounds for committing that action. But even if you could pinpoint that trait difference, I doubt you could deploy it while being consistent within your own ethics.

I eat animals because meat gives me pleasure and I am a disgusting human being. I also do other gross disgusting thing's. . but I try to make up for them by trying to be otherwise. — Marcus de Brun

And do you think you're immoral for eating meat? And if so, why don't you change it. Changing your diet is much easier than many other things in this selfish world we live in.

The most likely reason is simply because of the culture I was raised in. — Moliere

So are you appealing to the societal/cultural norm? Which, I don't think I would need to state how flawed that position is. The cultural norm says nothing about what is moral or immoral, but more so what people have generally agreed is permissible. in Saudi Arabia, it is the cultural norm to put homosexuals to death, yet I think we would both agree that their cultural norm is immoral. So you cannot point to 'societal or cultural norms' as a justification for your actions.

Given your commitment to reason I'd be interested in how you came up with that number. Where's the evidence? — Moliere

It is anecdotal, but nonetheless accurate to a greater degree than you may think. I've watched plenty of debates on this topic, as well as spoken to 100+ people about it. Out of the hundreds of opposing views I have read or watched on this topic, only 1 person has been internally consistent without being vegan. They were holding the view that human rights don't matter, and they also lacked empathy for ANY living being (human and animal included). This is a position, I would argue, almost nobody holds.

What differentiates the one from the other is being sufficiently human-like and being sufficiently cow-like. — Sapientia

This is a failure to actually answer the question. What are traits in being sufficiently human-like? Skin type? Intelligence level? The ability to speak english? Hair color?

I'm bored of your slavery analogy. — Sapientia

And I'm bored of you failing to recognize the similarities, and also never presenting a counter argument. Even if the two situations weren't comparable at all (which it is clear they are), I am using your justification in another context to expose how invalid your justification is.

Saying, " it is necessary for a supply to meet its demand ", is a completely flawed argument. Because a demand of something does not tell you whether that demand is condoning something moral or immoral. Again, just because slave traders demand the supply of more slaves, doesn't' mean that the demand of wanting more slaves is justified or morally permissible.

And I never made the argument that something being in demand makes it good. Quit jumping the gun. — Sapientia

Yes, of course meat production isn't necessary in an absolute sense. There isn't much that is. But it's necessary to meet the demand. And there is a demand. — Sapientia

You framed this statement in a way that although meat production isn't necessary, there is a demand for it, which makes it necessary. This is contradictory, for one. But for two, you're indirectly saying that "because there is a demand for something, it makes it OK"

That's why you don't mind picking up a $100 dollar note from the street floor even when you know someone misses it dearly but you would avoid actually putting your hand into someone's bag and stealing. — TheMadFool

Except that a moral person would try to find the owner of that $100 is possible. An immoral person wouldn't think twice and just take it for themselves. Although one could make a case that it would be too hard to track down the owner of that $100, and therefore is justified in keeping it for themselves.

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.

And I don't accept your repeated analogy with slavery as a true analogy — Sapientia

All you have ever said is, "I don't accept your analogy", or "It is not similar." - You haven't actually provided a counter argument or rebuttal to refute my comparison to slavery. Which, as I have stated many times, has strikingly similar characteristics to factory farming. And I'll write them again.

- Both situations (slavery & factory farming) are discriminating against other living beings
- Both situations have condoned it and allowed it be legalized
- Both situations are part of the societal norm
- Both situations cause unnecessary pain and suffering that can be replaced with an easy alternative
- Both situations devalue living beings (black people and animals)

But it’s not me that demands your simplistic black and white form of consistency here, is it? It is you that is stuck with that as the dilemma. — apokrisis

There's no black and white form of consistency. You're either consistent in your ethics, or you are not. A racist is inconsistent within their ethical framework; this is how it works.

A racist believes that he is justified in discriminating against a person of different skin color. But would he accept a different race discriminating against him because he has a different skin color? Probably not. Therefore he is logically inconsistent within his own ethics. His own beliefs contradict either each. And a simpler way of putting it is; he is being hypocritical.

You're doing the same thing within your own justification for killing animals. You believe you are justified in killing cows because cows don’t have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion. But you would accept being killed if you (or any human) didn't have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion, to any better degree than a cow? Probably not. Therefore you're being hypocritical. AKA, logically inconsistent.

This is a fairly simple concept, and I think you understand it. Which is why you refuse to answer the question when a consistency test is pushed toward your reasoning.

Does it matter why? I'm only arguing that it is a fallacy to claim that in buying meat I'm responsible for the killing if animals,just as it would be a fallacy to claim that in buying stolen diamonds I'm responsible for the theft. — Michael

I never said you are directly responsible for the theft or killing of animals. I have specifically stated, multiple times, that you are CONTRIBUTING to the killing of animals. Just as you would be CONTRIBUTING to the theft, if you continuously bought from that store. This makes you partially responsible in an indirect manner.

But conveniently, you didn't answer the question. I'll give you three scenarios.

A: The law does not see animal slaughter as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business is built upon the foundation of torturing and killing animals, to present you with a product.

B: The law does not see stealing from others to obtain diamonds as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business is built upon the foundation of stealing diamonds from other people, to present you with a product.

C: The law does not see slavery as illegal, and society generally condones it and does not see it as immoral. A business (slave-trade) is built upon the foundation of enslaving humans, to present you with a product.

Would you buy products that directly contribute to any of these businesses? If so, are you not partially responsible for contributing to the demand of what the business is supplying?

A better analogy would be a thief who steals diamonds and then finds someone willing to buy them. Even if the buyer knows that the the diamonds are stolen, the buyer isn't responsible for the theft. — Michael

To make it more analogous, this thief would need to start a business. And that business would be based on the fact that he steals from others and then supplies it inside of a store. And everyone knows that he is stealing from others to supply diamonds to any random buyer. And the law would also see his stealing as fine and legal, and would not charge him for theft, as the law (and society) would be okay with him stealing.

So if there was a business like this out there, where you KNEW the business was working on the basis of stealing from other people, would you still buy from them? This is the same concept as you buying from a company that works on the basis of torturing and slaughtering other living beings (cows/chickens/pigs).

I am a normal human being who eats animals. — Marcus de Brun

Why do you eat animals?

Yes, of course meat production isn't necessary in an absolute sense. There isn't much that is. But it's necessary to meet the demand. And there is a demand. We could keep going back and forth like this. — Sapientia

What are you even saying here? An absolute sense? We have plant-based alternatives, so how is it necessary at all, let alone in an absolute sense.

Also, there have been MANY things that were 'necessary' to meet a demand. Again, back to slavery. People needed more slaves, so people bought and traded them. Just because there is a demand for something, doesn't mean that thing is actually good or necessary.

It’s pretty obvious. Cows don’t have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion, let alone a desire for consistent ethical practices. — apokrisis

So if a human (such as a severely mentally disabled one) didn't have the cognitive capacity for empathy and compassion (to any better degree than a cow), are you now justified in killing them?

[This is where your consistency would need to kick in, otherwise you'd have internally contradictory beliefs]

That's just how it is for many people, and that's just how it will continue to be for quite some time yet, I predict. I don't forsee a 'veggie revolution' on the horizon. Your views represent a minority. — Sapientia

This is completely irrelevant. Owning slaves was 'just how it was for many people, and it was just how it continued to be for quite some time.' - And the activist against slavery would have been a minority. Just because a group or view is not popular, doesn't mean it is incorrect. You seem to be engaged in an appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not just a matter of whether it's right or wrong. It's a matter of, if it's wrong, how wrong? And why should I care enough to act any differently? You can make your case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day me likes meat. — Sapientia

Same for the slave owner. Here's the slave owner talking: "Why should I care enough to act any differently? The activist against slavery could make their case until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, me likes slaves"

Trying to justify your actions with preference and/or taste pleasure, is a bit absurd. At this point, you seem to hold positions of a person who is morally bankrupt.

You still have not acknowledged the similarities I have pointed out between the two. All you can say is, "they aren't the same thing." - Just because you don't view it the same, doesn't mean it is not similar.

- Both situations (slavery & factory farming) are discrimination against other living beings
- Both situations have condoned it and allowed it be legalized
- Both situations are part of the societal norm
- Both situations cause unnecessary pain and suffering that can be replaced with an easy alternative
- Both situations devalue living beings (black people and animals)

I can probably think of more examples, but those similarities are good enough. And to say they aren't comparable and it would be laughable to claim they are, is just ignorant.

It doesn’t follow from any of that that I am responsible for what other people do. I’m only responsible for buying meat from a supermarket. — Michael

Ok let's use your same logic here.

If I hire a hitman to kill someone, am I responsible for the person's death? Or am I only responsible for paying the hitman?

You're buying meat. The slaughter house is your hitman. You pay the hitman to slaughter your meat for you. Are you responsible for the slaughter, or just responsible for paying the slaughter house?

It's not the same because I am an avowed speciesist so I don't have a problem in placing my needs and wants before those of animals. — Txastopher

Saying you're a speciesist is the same as saying you're a racist. Discrimination against another species (or race), simply because they are of a different species (or race). And to show you how flawed this position is, would you accept an Alien species farming humans but raising them humanely, and then kill them without pain when they turn 20 years old? Probably not, so your position is inconsistent.

In the first case you engaged in ableism and in the second case you are engaged in speciesism. — Txastopher

False, because neither of those two cases have anything to do with species. They have to do with moral capacity and positive impact for the world.

Yet more speciesism. — Txastopher

Again, no. Because I am not saying an action is justified on the sole basis of a difference in species. You may want to look up the term 'speciesist', because you seem to not know how to apply it properly.

I wouldn't be logically inconsistent. — Moliere

You still would. Because you need to explain why you don't feel empathy for a cow, but you do for a human. What is the trait that differentiates the two living beings?

Are you actually interested in knowing how others think about their ethical lives? — Moliere

Yes absolutely, but my point still stands. If you believe in universal human rights, that ultimately leads to veganism. The only way to be consistent without being Vegan, is to deny rights to humans. Which, 99% of people would not do, other than psychopaths.

Buying meat from a supermarket doesn't cause environmental damage to the environment, and nor does it cause physical pain to animals. The fact that the money I spend eventually finds its away back to the farmers doesn't pass any responsibility that they have for their actions on to me. — Michael

I guess I'll post my google doc again: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Click on the 'Environment' tab, and see the research for yourself. Factory farms, often confining thousands of animals, are major culprits in climate change. These mega-farms create huge amounts of manure that pollute the soil, water, and air. Animal factories also waste grain, water, fuel, and other resources.

As stated before, something you still haven't grasped, is the idea of supply and demand. These factory farmers SUPPLY you with what you DEMAND from them. If you (and everyone else) STOPS demanding what they are supplying, they will go out of business. And if they go out of business, the harm to animals and to the environment will cease to exist.

so you are speciesist — jastopher

This is completely false, because I even stated that I would kill a severely autistic human to save a starving human child. So this is not speciesism, because I am not exploiting based on species. There's two different moral dilemmas.

1. Would you kill a severe mentally handicapped person to save a child?
2. Would you kill an animal to save a child?

Both answers are yes. Therefore I am not engaged into speciesism. But just to point out, both of these scenarios are by FORCE. These are situations that leave you with no choice, unless you allow the child to die. The child is put into a situation where it needs to survive off another living being. But in our situation, on a daily basis, we are not put in a situation where our lives are threatened. We do not need to contribute to factory farms, nor do we need meat for our survival. So the moral dilemma is irrelevant.

If it were possible to eliminate all suffering from the supply chain, would you then condone meat eating? — jastopher

No, because an animal would still be getting killed, which doesn't allow the animal to live its natural life. That is the same as me asking you, "If we could raise humans humanely, but kill them without pain when they turn 20 years old, would you then condone that treatment?" - No. If you wouldn't be OK with that treatment for yourself or your own species, why would it be OK for you to treat another species in the same way?

Where do you stand on laboratory grown meat? What about eating insects? — jastopher

If lab meat involves no pain or suffering, I have no issue with it. Eating insects is similar to eating animals. Why do it when it is not needed or necessary? Unless your survival rests on the diet of insects (or meat), there's no reason to do so.

But if cows could be raised humanely and killed without pain? I don't have a problem with that. Though I don't know if I hold to your moral trifecta, either. — Moliere

Cows are just one animal in the factory farming industry. Pigs are much more intelligent, even more so than dogs. The moral trifecta isn't necessary to lead to veganism, although I would hold the view that it is impossible to hold all 3 of those qualities as true, without being a Vegan.

The only thing you need to lead yourself to Veganism is logical consistency. Ask yourself, "If I raised a cow humanely and killed it without pain, would I accept this same treatment for myself?" And whatever trait you use to justify the dismissal of that belief, would you accept the treatment if that trait was present in yourself? I'll give an example of what you might say.

' I am not okay with humans being raised humanely and killed without pain, because humans are smarter than animals ' - The trait you would be using here is "humans are smarter". So to lead to your logically consistent conclusion, would you allow that treatment for a human that is NOT smarter than the average human? Something similar to a severely autistic person, or a mentally handicapped person. Since those two types of people would have similar intelligence levels of a cow, is now okay to raise them humanely and kill them without pain? If you say no, then your position is inconsistent.

Veganism is the logically consistent conclusion you would reach, no matter what your subjective ethics consist of. The only thing that wouldn't lead to Veganism, is someone who lacked empathy for both animals AND humans. But that person should not be viewed as someone we should take advice from on how to build a healthy and thriving society.

If the first thing that comes to mind when someone intends to hurt you is the morality of their behaviour, I would say that there is something very wrong with you. — Michael

If you're talking about a spontaneous act of violence, of course i would not have time to think about the moral decision making of the person/animal trying to harm me. But if it was a person who lived their life and continuously caused harm, you SHOULD assess the morality of their behavior. If you do not, then you have no grounds to say what is or isn't moral at all.

You are causing environmental damage (to the earth), health damage (to yourself) and physical pain (to the animals), when you decide to eat meat. The science for the health and environmental concerns are clear, so that isn't even debatable. The ethics are just as clear as our perspective nowadays of slavery is, but you use every excuse in the book to continue your taste pleasure, rather than actually care about another living being who you are causing to suffer in pain.

I'll take that as a yes. — jastopher

If you want to go to the dictionary definition of 'speciesism', it is "the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals."

I never condone or support the exploitation of animals. Therefore I am not a speciesist. But if you want to redefine the term 'speciesism' to mean that anyone who holds the position that humans are of higher value than animals, this is not the same term. But as I stated before, even though I do think Humans are more valuable, I do not think they should exploit animals and/or cause needless suffering.

Another definition of 'speciesism' is "the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership". This again, does not apply to me. Because I do not assign higher value to humans solely on the basis of being a different species.

So when I said, "not in the way you think", I was implying that you are equating my position with a term that does not apply.

Why not do what I like, and others do what I like too? — jastopher

So 200 years ago, a slave owner could say the same thing too right? "Why not do what I like and own slaves, and other white people in my society can do what I like too?" - Flawed moral argumentation.

but free-range etc. could produce more pleasure than suffering, and hence eating meat is not absolutely wrong. — jastopher

Free-range, organic, grass-fed, cage-free, are all irrelevant to the treatment of the animals. This is just a lack of research and willful ignorance to continue in your obvious immoral actions.

You cannot justify eating animals without creating a contradiction within your own personal ethics.

And comparing eating meat to owning slaves is just silly. — Sapientia

This is not an appeal to authority, but some of the most brilliant minds alive today, have made this very same comparison. Look up the talk with Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins: https://youtu.be/GYYNY2oKVWU?t=1766

Richard states that his position on eating animals is similar to that of the position regarding slavery. Sam Harris and others have also made this same comparison. Stating that, in the future, we will look at Factory Farming as an abomination, similarly to how we look at Slavery right now. And there are many similarities to pinpoint.

- Enslaving other living beings for our benefit
- Causing unnecessary pain and suffering to other living beings
- Viewing other living beings as "lesser than", which justify our cruel actions
- The current societal norm
- Is not illegal at the time of being condoned

So you admit to speciesism? — jastopher

Not in the way you think I am. As me and Buxtebuddha already explained, there's a difference between a necessary evil and an unnecessary evil. Eating meat is not necessary. If you still don't understand the difference, I don't' know what to tell you.

but then how do they justify the claim that it is wrong to cause suffering? — Michael

Because you wouldn't accept another living being causing you to suffer needlessly, would you? No, which makes you hypocritical and causes you to have inconsistent ethics. If you wouldn't accept needless suffering for yourself, why would you impose that onto others? As I said before, all living beings try to avoid pain and suffering, because it diminishes the well-being of that life. And if you wouldn't want to allow a diminishing of well-being for yourself, why would you want to do that to another living being? This is where empathy and compassion come in, which you don't seem to have. But more importantly, you aren't even consistent within your own ethical perspective.

but they do still have to accept some undesirable consequences such as the moral desirability of eating roadkill. — jastopher

There is no 'moral' connection between me and roadkill. There is no pain I can cause to the animal, and therefore the only concern (if I were to eat it) would be health concerns. Animals and Humans both die as a result of our current transportation. But it isn't specific to animals, as many people die as well in car accidents.

"would you kill an animal in order to save a starving child?" — jastopher

As I stated in this thread before, moral dilemmas (such as this one you have provided) are completely separate from moral consistency. But I will still answer your question.

I would kill an animal to save a starving child, because I believe the child(human) has more value than an animal. I have never advocated that animals are of equal value to humans. I have advocated that animals deserve the same basic rights as humans (right to freedom, right to live, right to not experience needless pain and suffering).

That at the very basic level, not violating the rights of another sentient being (human or non-human) is something we owe them. It's the absolute minimum a person can do to be considered a moral agent. We aren't obligated to befriend them, feed them, domesticate them or save them from predators. But at the most minuscule level of moral agency, we are obligated to NOT violate their rights. Their bodily rights (of consent) and their right to life (not die). And you may think this contradicts my position on your moral dilemma, but it does not. In the moral dilemma, the starving child has no other means to survive, other than me killing an animal to feed it. In the world we live in right now, we have other means to survive that do not consist of eating meat. Necessary harm (moral dilemma) vs unnecessary harm (factory farming).

What about killing a severely mentally-disabled person to feed a starving child? — jastopher

Same concept. If the only option was to save one or the other, I would save the starving child who isn't severely mentally-disabled. When there is no other option, I would consistently choose the thing of higher value in that specific situation. And by higher value, I am referring to things like: Higher levels of moral capacity and deep reasoning, higher probability of making a positive change in the world, etc.

But when it comes to factory farms and animal harm, we aren't in a position of having no option. We aren't in a position of having a moral dilemma, similar to that of "Would you kill an animal to save a starving child?" - The harm we cause to animals is completely needless, and is not remotely comparable to the dilemma you have put forward. In the moral dilemma, the person either let's the child die, or tries to save it. In the factory farming situation, we are intentionally killing a life, when it had no threat of being harmed or dying in the first place. That is the key difference here.

So yes, I'll bite the bullet on the rare moral dilemma (that I would probably never be faced with in reality), compared to the meat eaters who have to bite the bullet on their internal inconsistency. Some of which commit in reality as of right now. Many meat eaters in the world own pets. This is a clear example of discrimination and hypocrisy/inconsistency. Why care about one animals life (dog) over another (cow)? And neither the cow nor dog is in any immediate harm, or deserves any imposed harm.

But there's no good reason for thinking that they are. — Sapientia

So you claim...

I can intuitively know that there's something wrong about it. — Sapientia

This is shaky grounds for what you would base moral decisions on. I'd rather use reason and logical consistency instead of "feelings" or "intuition".

And I eat meat because I enjoy doing so, whether it's right or wrong. — Sapientia

And slave owners enjoyed owning slaves. Your grounds for morality are that of a slave owner who doesn't want to give up a habit that is condoned and enabled by society. Instead of using logic and reason, with a bit of decency, you'd rather commit actions (which you imply may be wrong) than actually make a change for the better. I think that says more about you than you realize.

When we exercise, we experience physical pain, but we keep doing it for the health and social benefits. Physical pain teaches you what is dangerous to your body and what isn't. We need pain in order to survive. It evolved for a reason. — Harry Hindu

Are you going to continue to point toward pain that is beneficial to human health, rather than pointing to the pain that I am referring to that is dangerous to human health. Put yourself in the position of a factory farmed animal. Is the pain and suffering you go through (along with abrupt death) comparable to someone who exercises? Or put yourself in the shoes of a slave 300 years ago. Is the physical pain of a slave comparable to your pain when you exercise? The more you talk, the more I learn about your lack of empathy and reason.

It is not a rare case for someone to end their lives. People do it every day. — Harry Hindu

In the United States, the annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 13.26 per 100,000 individuals. That's 0.0001326 % of the population. I would say that is pretty rare.

If it is about pain that you are worried about, then we can kill animals without them feeling any pain. If it is life you are worried about, then you kill life every time you eat a head of lettuce and are being inconsistent yourself. Who are you to determine which organism gets to live simply because of the arbitrary boundary you have chosen of having a nervous system or not. — Harry Hindu

It is about BOTH. I care about the "life" that can experience pain and suffering. I don't care about every life equally. And by the logic you're using, you might as well say that sticks, rocks, dirt and sand have life. Lettuce cannot feel pain and suffering, and neither can a rock. So I am not being inconsistent when I say I care about all life that can experience pain and suffering. I do also care about plants, but for a different reason.

Also, there is no arbitrary boundary. It is just a fact that things without a nervous system cannot feel pain. We, as humans, experience pain, as well as other living things. All these living things share the fact that they want to avoid pain and suffering. If plants cannot feel pain, we don't need to be morally responsible for our actions in the same way we would toward a living thing that DOES feel pain.

Who are you to say that physical pain is worse than mental hardship? — Harry Hindu

Would you rather get killed or get molested? Would you rather be enslaved or get molested? Would you rather get tortured and slaughtered, or get molested? Would you rather get attacked by a lion, or get molested? Stop being ignorant.

If a person gets molested, they still have a chance to have a healthy life. They can pursue mental help to assist them in their traumatic experience. Stop committing this false equivalency.

Yes, this is a problem for most living beings in this planet, we can't go on without killing something else. — jonjt

Just to clarify, I hope you weren't agreeing with Harry Hindu's incorrect statement of falsely equating plants to animals. Because it is quite clear that plants cannot feel pain and suffering, while animals (cows/chickens/pigs) can.