I know. I guess what I don't understand then is how you can claim to be okay with doing something you can't really defend. Since, if your gut feeling is wrong, and it seems more likely than not that it is, the consequences are so dire.

What makes you think that you can reasonably break up my conditions and assess each of them in isolation? That's not how I answered the question. If all of those conditions were met, then I would have no qualms. — Sapientia

Because you can't just throw in a bunch of random reasons together and think you have a coherent or reasonable argument. A bunch of bad reasons, when put together, doesn't suddenly become a collectively good reason. If each of your reasons can be broken down and become problematic, the argument fails. Imagine someone trying to condone slavery.

'Slavery is morally correct if it meets this criteria: The enslaved person needs have green eyes, black hair, somewhat of a lower IQ, has a different skin color than me and acts differently than me.'

All of those reasons for why slavery should be permitted, do not suddenly become reasonable when you put them all together. You'd have to assess each reason and see if it is a valid justification to cause harm to another living being. Having green eyes shouldn't justify causing harm, and neither should the hair or skin color. Now apply the same logic to your justifications for why you can cause harm to animals. Just because you have a plethora of reasons, doesn't mean each reason is valid, and doesn't mean all reasons combined suddenly become one valid argument.

Since, if your gut feeling is wrong, and it seems more likely than not that it is, the consequences are so dire. — NKBJ

What dire consequences? I certainly don't think "being unethical" is a dire consequence.

and it seems more likely than not that it is

How so? Is there some reason to believe that it's wrong to eat animals?

I guess what I don't understand then is how you can claim to be okay with doing something you can't really defend.

Why do I need to defend it?

Participating in, or at least not even attempting to extricate yourself and your actions from, the active and ongoing suffering of billions of animals.

Participating in, or at least not even attempting to extricate yourself and your actions from, the active and ongoing suffering of billions of animals. — NKBJ

I'm confused. What's suffering got to do with it? We were talking about intelligence.

Everything. If intelligent beings couldn't suffer, then hurting them wouldn't be a problem.

It ought to be fairly obvious that I'm not stringing together random reasons, why I'm doing what I'm doing, and why you can't reasonably isolate the conditions I set, but perhaps you missed the point.

If someone thinks that it's okay to eat chicken, and not to eat human, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to eat humans under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a chicken in all but name.

This is an option that's on the table. It has been one of the bullets to bite, and it stands in contrast to the alternative of thinking that it's okay to eat chicken, but not human, and the alternative of thinking that it's not okay to eat either chicken or human.

If intelligent beings couldn't suffer, then hurting them wouldn't be a problem. — NKBJ

Sure it would. It's wrong to hurt and kill people with CIPA.

Not intrinsically, no, or so I would submit. For most of human history, animals were necessary to human survival. In many parts of the world today, this is still true, but in developed nations, it can arguably be said that meat eating is superfluous to survival, which means that the main reasons most people continue to eat meat are habit, social pressure, and, of course, rank hedonism ("it tastes good"). I suppose one could make the case for raising livestock for various ecological and agricultural reasons (it helps maintain fertile soil and is necessary for other types of food production, for example).

If this is coupled with a commitment to raise animals responsibly and humanely (which they are not at present, unfortunately) and to make use of the food and other resources they provide (instead of the currently wasteful practices), then I might not have objections to eating meat even in the developed world. I am vegetarian for not merely ethical reasons but aesthetic ones (I do not generally like the taste and texture of real meat) and ascetic ones (I view it as a form of self-denial and even penance).

I have. But you haven't shown that there is a significant difference that would make killing animals acceptable. — NKBJ

If there's no significant difference, then how do you explain why we don't slaughter those humans with severe mental disability? We have gathered that there seems to be more than intellectual capacity involved. So, what else?

If you take a human and lose each human trait one by one and replace them each time with a chicken trait, then eventually there will come a point at which a meat eater will think that it's acceptable to eat the human. So, I conclude that 1) there must be something about chickens and our relationship to them that causes meat eaters to think that it's acceptable to eat them, and that 2) there must be something about humans and our relationship to them that causes us to think that it's not acceptable to eat them, and that 3) there's nothing inherent to being a human that makes it out of the question to be eaten as we would eat a chicken, so long as the human were sufficiently chicken-like.

If you're talking about humans in general deserving certain treatment on the grounds of a specific trait, all humans have to have that trait. — NKBJ

Poppycock! No they don't, they just have to generally have that trait. The term "in general" doesn't mean or entail "all". It allows for exceptions. It's unreasonable of you to disregard this and to instead seek out highly specific exceptions to pose as some sort of challenge.

So, if I have a handicapped person who is permanently intellectually at the level or below that of a pig or chicken or cow, does that mean I can cause that person pain or kill him/her? — NKBJ

Yes, provided they're sufficiently pig-like, chicken-like, or cow-like in all relevant respects.

I've decided to bite the bullet, in a sense, and it doesn't taste so bad. Tastes like chicken. A lovely succulent chicken bullet. Mmm...

At least you're trying to be consistent, even if I think you might just be biting the bullet here!

However, what if we tweaked the above scenario just one iota and said a human who was in every regard like a chicken except that he/she looked like a human?

(Also, I'm curious, why does it matter to you how others have treated this human?) — NKBJ

I'm not sure, to be honest. It's a very weird thing to consider. I would probably feel unconformable about the thought of doing so, at least at first, even if it was irrational to feel that way.

And it matters how others have treated the human because if it's treated like a human rather than a chicken, then that'll probably effect how I think and feel about it.

If someone thinks that it's okay to eat chicken, and not to eat human, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to eat humans under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a chicken in all but name. — Sapientia

This is the main problem here. It is like saying, "If someone thinks that it's okay to enslave black people, and not to enslave white people, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to enslave white people under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a black person in all but name."

This is an absurd position to hold. Whether you substitute slavery with eating a living being, is irrelevant. If you cannot put your finger on why you are justifying one action but not another, you're position on ethics is unreasonable, incoherent and borderline sociopathic.

This is the main problem here. It is like saying, "If someone thinks that it's okay to enslave black people, and not to enslave white people, but perhaps can't quite put their finger on why exactly that is, then I think that it will be intuitively compelling for such a person to conclude, after giving this thought experiment some consideration, that it's okay to enslave white people under the right circumstances, namely that they're practically a black person in all but name."

This is an absurd position to hold. Whether you substitute slavery with eating a living being, is irrelevant. If you cannot put your finger on why you are justifying one action but not another, you're position on ethics is unreasonable, incoherent and borderline sociopathic. — chatterbears

No, I don't think so, because I can point to a distinct set of circumstances, and others can relate to and identify with my position. I can know that there's something wrong about standing by doing nothing whilst a house begins to burn with a baby trapped inside, even if I wasn't able to put my finger on it.

No, I don't think so, because I can point to a distinct set of circumstances, and others can relate to and identify with my position. — Sapientia

What are the distinct set of circumstances? A slave owner could point to a set of circumstances, as well as have others that can relate and indentify with the slave owner’s position.

I can know that there's something wrong about standing by doing nothing whilst a house begins to burn with a baby trapped inside, even if I wasn't able to put my finger on it. — Sapientia

It depends on what your moral foundation is based upon. And if you have no foundation you can point to, then you are basically incapable of discerning right from wrong. Because I base my morality on improving the well-being of sentient beings. If it was possible for me to save a baby from a burning house, without putting myself at great risk, it would be wrong for me to not save the baby, because I would be allowing the baby to have a diminished well-being. If my goal is to improve/consider the well-being of sentient beings, saving the baby would be in my framework.

It all depends on the risk factor. Saving a baby from a burning house is of high risk. And I wouldn’t say it is wrong for someone to not save a baby if their own life was at great risk. But if they were at a low (or nonexistent) risk, then it would be wrong. Similarly, you aren’t at any risk to stop eat animals. All you need to do is switch your diet.

I’d say the essential weakness here is that it would be inconsistent to claim that compassion and empathy are ever universally applied in exceptionless fashion in the first place.

Your logic holds if they are moral absolutes and there are no moral relativities. And yet isn't there the alternative - and ethically consistent - morality which recognises that compassion and empathy are never so universally right that they should always be carried to their logical extremes.

What is your position on laughing at YouTube compilations of skateboarders face-planting? Is this morally defensible given that it compromises the ideals of compassion and empathy? Is it a black and white situation where logic says we must ban people from finding the pain of others funny? Why would we stop at merely not eating meat. Why would we not have to follow through with equal rigour in every aspect of life?

So my counter-argument is that your position depends on black and white extremism. You are pushing an unwarranted idealism that unethically rejects the very possibility of a positive and relativistic balance.

There is of course good reason to debate where we would draw our limits. Compassion and empathy matter - but there is also reason to be found in their "others". But you are illegitimately refusing to consider this larger view.

Now perhaps we ought to stop eating meat as we come to appreciate animals as sentient beings. But the balanced reply demands that we show that compassion and empathy are the exclusive moral rule of sentience in the first place. The evidence of how humans treat each other is that we apply relativities more than absolutes in that sphere. Flexibility rather than rigidity is what is considered morally appropriate or actually functional.

And then much more work would have to be done to show that the sentience of animals is of the same order and so demand the same standard being applied - whatever that may be. It is pretty clear to most folk that animals feel pain, but also that it is not experienced in the same existential way. It is not a dread or an ever-present memory. It happens and it is gone.

So it is lesser in some ethically critical fashion. Is it wrong to raise stock in a paddock - keeping them happy and well-fed, as that is in the farmer's best interest - and then end their lives in unanticipated fashion with a sudden bolt through the head?

Factory farming involves more continuous suffering. But - unless you just don't accept relativity and you insist on absolutism - good ethical thought would be able to make these fine shades of distinction. It would be able to justify both empathy and compassion, but also their converse, when appropriate.

The morality would reflect the full balance of interests that exist, not pretend that only one side knows what is right.

Empathy, compassion and consistency are not necessary. But if you do care about those three things, and hold true to them, Veganism logically follows.

But even without empathy or compassion for other animals, consistency would STILL lead to Veganism. Because you cannot justify your actions in one context, while rejecting them in another. Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself and hold two opposing views simultaneously. This is why, my ethical standpoint doesn't necessarily even matter at all. I am not arguing for absolutism or anything of the sort.

I never claimed that I hold to the position of moral absolutes, nor do I think this is the case. Because there are cases, such as self-defense, where killing something is justified. Therefore, this is an obvious case where "killing is always wrong" does not apply.

The 'absolute' portion you may be confusing, is the logical consistency portion of each person's justifications. To be a moral agent, you would need to exercise reason and critical thought to come to consistent ethical positions. I've used this formula before, but I'll use it again here:

Subject A believes X based on Y.
Humans (Subject A) believe eating animals is OK (X) based on difference of intelligence level ( Y ).

The 'Difference of intelligence level' is the justification the person would be using to justify their action of eating animals. For that person to be consistent, you would need to change the context, but keep the same justification applied. So it would go like this:

Humans believe eating animals is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Humans believe eating mentally handicapped humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Aliens believe eating humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.

All three of these scenarios are using the same justification, which is "difference of intelligence level". To be consistent in your justification, you would need to accept all 3 of these scenarios, otherwise you'd hold a contradictory view. And to clarify again, this is from the person's own subjective ethical beliefs. This is completely separate from the justifications I would use for my actions. I can lead people to Veganism from their OWN subjective personal ethics. Which is why I ask people (and you can answer this for yourself), why do you eat meat? And whatever that reason is, if that trait was present in you, would you still accept it? Most people say no, which creates an inconsistent position.

Empathy, compassion and consistency are not necessary. But if you do care about those three things, and hold true to them, Veganism logically follows. — chatterbears

So they are not necessary. But the only way to "care about them" is to "hold true" in a fashion that is idealistically one note and not pragmatically balanced?

Obvioiusly I can care about them quite consistently as being part of a balance. And indeed, a necessary part for there to be that balance. So already your argument is off track.

But even without empathy or compassion for other animals, consistency would STILL lead to Veganism. Because you cannot justify your actions in one context, while rejecting them in another. — chatterbears

Blinded by your absolutism then. It all boils down to black and white.

Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself and hold two opposing views simultaneously. — chatterbears

Alternatively, I would recognise ambiguity as a fundamental part of the equation. Ethically, I think that is a good thing. Reality is often just ambiguous. Moral reasoning needs to get that.

I never claimed that I hold to the position of moral absolutes, nor do I think this is the case. Because there are cases, such as self-defense, where killing something is justified. Therefore, this is an obvious case where "killing is always wrong" does not apply. — chatterbears

Correct. Well, at least it is arguable and illustrates the general point that moral boundaries always ought to be drawn up as the result of striking a reasonable balance between two relative notions of the good.

So we have ambiguity as a basic possibility anyway. Grey is an actual shade between black and white. But also - as a matter of intelligible principle - we want to draw lines that are as definite as they need to be to guide behaviour. And that is where the ethical debate must discover the opposing principles in play. You can't have a balance of interests unless those competing interests are clearly identified.

That is my complaint about your process of thought. You only identified compassion/empathy. You need to bring to the table the other complementary notion of what would be a good here.

Why would self-defence ever be morally justified? What is the general idea you were after there? How is eating meat not a legitimate form of "self-defence" against the perils of being a starving meat-eater?

Of course, in the modern world we have alternatives. We can culture meat stem cells in the lab now. We probably will as it is going to be far cheaper. No central nervous system need ever be involved in this franken-meat.

But still, my point is that if exceptions are justified, then your argument has already shot itself in the foot. To achieve ethical consistency, the other side of the moral equation has to be presented properly. You can't just "care" about compassion and empathy in such a one sided and idealistic fashion, going to the extreme "logical" conclusion that then results. You must lay out a much fuller argument.

Humans believe eating animals is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Humans believe eating mentally handicapped humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level.
Aliens believe eating humans is OK based on difference of intelligence level. — chatterbears

So you answer the charge that you employ the slippery slope fallacy by replying in terms of a slippery slope fallacy.

That is kinda funny.

I can lead people to Veganism from their OWN subjective personal ethics. — chatterbears

I bet you can. You are trying to use the same "save your soul" cheap logical tricks that cults and religions have employed for practically ever. It's how they sell cars or soap flakes. Buy it, you are worth it. It would be logically inconsistent for you to deny yourself these choices.

Slippery slope thinking is endemic. Have you ever thought how you are just surrounded by germs. Look at what this purple light reveals as we scan your hands and kitchen surfaces. My God, it's amazing you aren't dead already. Here, buy these germicidal wet wipes impregnated with nuke-power antibiotics. Please hurry. Save your soul.

But anyway, I see you are here to practice your sales pitch. You want converts. This isn't about a philosophical discussion.

Why would self-defence ever be morally justified? What is the general idea you were after there? How is eating meat not a legitimate form of "self-defence" against the perils of being a starving meat-eater? — apokrisis

My position is, the consideration/improvement of the well-being of sentient beings. Clearly if I am being attacked, my well-being is being diminished, and self-defense still aligns with this foundation. Someone else is trying to diminish my well-being, while I try to retain/improve it. Therefore it is morally justified to sustain well-being to the highest degree possible, which follows in self-defense. This is still completely consistent, and does not contradict my justification/reasoning for my moral actions. (Unlike people who based moral actions on 'taste' or 'lower intelligence level'.)

Eating meat BEFORE we did not have alternatives, could be viewed as self-defense. Since not eating would diminish your well-being. Right now, we have access to plant-based foods. Nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, beans, rice, pasta, etc... And changing your diet is not that difficult, as it just takes a small amount of research. And in doing so, you would be avoiding contributing to the pain and suffering caused by animal agriculture.

Also, to clear up your point of "if exceptions are justified, then your argument has already shot itself in the foot." - This is false. Exceptions of the situation are justification, not the justification itself. When deploying a justification to use as a basis for committing a moral action, that justification has no exceptions. These are two different statements:

1. It is wrong to kill
- There can be exceptions to this. As self-defense, as I already explained, is an exception.

2. It is wrong to kill based on hair color.
- This is where there are no exceptions, on the basis of hair color. If someone believes it is wrong to kill based on hair color, we can deploy "hair color" in another context, and they should always (consistently) believe it is wrong. Meaning, we could change the scenario to, "It is wrong to slap someone in the face based on hair color". That person would still need to accept that it is wrong, because the same justification is being used. This is the part you seem to be confusing.

There is a moral situation #1 (wrong to kill). And a moral justification #2 (wrong to kill because of hair color). These are two separate things. #1 can have exceptions (depending on your basis for morality). But #2 cannot have exceptions, as we test the consistency of the justification "hair color" as a basis for why it is wrong to do something.

You claim I am using logic tricks, similar to that of cults and religions, yet you aren't pointing to anything tangible. And to prove my point to you, we could start from the beginning.

Why do you eat meat? You may deploy the same justifications as others have used, such as: Comfort, convenience, cost, effort, species difference, intelligence difference, cultural norms, etc.

If you use a reason to justify your action of eating meat, you would need to deploy that same justification in another context for you to be consistent in your ethics. So if your answer was, "I eat meat because animals are less intelligent". You are justifying meat eating with intelligence level. So to be consistent, would you then say it is OK to eat a severely autistic human, because they are less intelligent? If not, then it is clear that using "intelligence level" as a justification is not valid, and you do not even accept it within your own ethics as a justification to use against you.

Also, to you and anyone else. I am willing to have a debate/discussion about this over voice (discord) if you would like. Not sure how PM'ing works, or if I would just link my discord here in this thread.

Exceptions of the situation are justification, not the justification itself. When deploying a justification to use as a basis for committing a moral action, that justification has no exceptions. — chatterbears

How can an exception be justified if it has no grounds?

Right now, we have access to plant-based foods. Nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, beans, rice, pasta, etc... And changing your diet is not that difficult, as it just takes a small amount of research. And in doing so, you would be avoiding contributing to the pain and suffering caused by animal agriculture. — chatterbears

Sure fine. But your dependence on subjectivity and absolutism leaves you open to the counter-position that veganism is all too much effort for me, I really like the taste of meat. And I only feel my own pain or suffering. I don't actually experience that of any animal involved. So the primary duty of care remains the servicing of my own selfish wishes here.

I'm not saying I would take that unbalanced view personally. I'm saying it is equally valid given your subjectivity and absolutism.

I don't actually feel any of the suffering of the pig in the crate or the chicken pumped up on hormones and antibiotics. If feelings of suffering are what count in absolute fashion, I have an absolute right of self-defence here, following your logic. If empathy and compassion are proving troublesome, the proper ethical course should be to look the other way, think of something else, do whatever it takes to prevent any suffering I may otherwise experience as a sentient being.

My own actual position is founded on a quite different psychological model. I don't believe in this glib thing of a "sentient being" as if consciousness were something so simple. So empathy and selfishness are naturally two sides of a coin - a way that a sense of self is even constructed in us as social creatures.

But that is by the by. I am pointing out how you are relying on simplicities that are then going to have their troublesome mirror image. Your argument is not in fact securely founded. It's negation is also "undeniable".

There is a moral situation #1 (wrong to kill). And a moral justification #2 (wrong to kill because of hair color). These are two separate things. — chatterbears

Yeah. I am absolutely not following your logic now. :)

If something is accidental, like hair colour, then it is hardly grounds for any kind of necessity, like assault or self-defence. So yes. But so what?

You claim I am using logic tricks, similar to that of cults and religions, yet you aren't pointing to anything tangible. And to prove my point to you, we could start from the beginning. — chatterbears

I think you prove my point quite well just there. Let's go back to the beginning and follow the whole script more carefully this time.

If you use a reason to justify your action of eating meat, you would need to deploy that same justification in another context for you to be consistent in your ethics. — chatterbears

I eat meat because I don't have a strong enough reason not to. I believe that lot of ethical choices do frankly fall into a gray area where there is nothing terribly significant at stake. I see ethics as a pragmatic work in progress and there are many cultural habits to be working on.

Animal welfare matters, but it would be ethically dubious to pick just that one cause and go to the extreme on it when each of us should contribute to moral progress in a rounded fashion. It is OK for things to evolve at a general cultural level because there is no absolute and objective morality involved. So I can imagine not eating meat as a result of that being a general cultural shift over time. But I'm not sure it is one of the most urgent matters facing humankind.

So I think this is a consistent application of pragmatism, a consistent understanding of the very basis of human moral behaviour. I might or might not change my ways. And I only even need some strong opinion to the degree that something high priority is at stake for the collective human condition which is the evolving system in question.

So to be consistent, would you then say it is OK to eat a severely autistic human, because they are less intelligent? — chatterbears

If that were customary in my society, then I'm sure I'd be quite use to the practice and wouldn't have a strong objection.

Abortions are normalised for most of us. Cannibalism has had its morally approved place in human history. So I wouldn't start with the unrealistic presumption that there is nothing that couldn't be a moral norm. I would instead start with a focus on the functionality of any such behaviour.

Does eating autistics achieve some reasonable goal? What are the actual pros and cons. Any ideas?

So I can imagine not eating meat....But I'm not sure it is one of the most urgent matters facing humankind.

Do you regard the efficient use of environmental resources as an urgent issue? I'm not sure about that myself, but if one were to think so, then there is some research available to show that lactovegetarian diets are more environmentally sustainable than the typical US model of a meat eating diet. Not dug into the statistical details, so the studies may be flawed, but supposing they are true, and supposing one valued frugality in the use of environmental resources, that might provide non-subjective grounds for moving towards (lacto)vegetarianism.

I never said pain was the only source of suffering. Though it is obviously a major source of it for most people capable of it.

In my back yard, I am a vengeful god, raining down terror and armageddon on the slugs and greenfly, fighting the cats and seagulls to protect my patch. As for the tomatoes, beans and salads, I exploit them ruthlessly. If I cut down a tree, millions die. If I clean the toilet, it is a genocide.

Such is life, even for the righteous vegan. He must clear the forest, fence out the rabbits and leave them to starve because he scruples to include them in his ecological exploitation, as I scruple to eat seagulls and slugs, and as most folks scruple to eat human flesh, even of those who have died - as we all do.

One sees from the lofty height of man, created in God's image, a hierarchy of life descending all around one, and measures one's moral obligation according to the level of being. Of gods and superior beings, one is not in a position to judge, but only be judged.

But the horror of myxomatosis was visited on the rabbit on behalf of the crop grower, not the animal husband. And it is a horror only because they are cute and cuddly. The destruction of half the insect population of Europe evokes no sympathy, but only a concern for the pollination of our crops.

The guinea worm is almost extinct, thanks largely to the efforts of one man. And I am celebrating, and not volunteering to host this endangered species. Life is just complicated, and morality has to be too.

How so? Is there some reason to believe that it's wrong to eat animals? — Michael

There's nothing wrong with eating an animal per se. It's killing or harming an animal that's wrong.
And it's the same reasons I have for not kicking my cat or my dog. It's so obviously true that my dog suffers if I hurt her, and that her suffering is akin to my suffering, that I know hurting her is wrong.
And, to be honest, most meat eaters don't defend the idea of harming or killing animals when it comes to cats, dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, etc. It's just when the idea is brought up that they personally might have to change what is for most a thrice daily habit, that they suddenly try to find some way to say that animal suffering doesn't matter or doesn't exist...


I mean, sorry Sap, but as much as I have enjoyed our discussion for entertainment purposes, your final statement about basically being okay with eating a mentally disabled human is just a hilarious example of biting the bullet.

I don't recall anyone saying it here, but I am reminded of how ironic it is when people think vegans are crazy or ridiculous, when all we're saying is "don't eat the cows, just eat a veggie burger" and omnis say things like "in order to justify my cow burger, it's okay to eat a human burger."

But I do appreciate the discussion with both of you!

There's nothing wrong with eating an animal per se. It's killing or harming an animal that's wrong. — NKBJ

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

At best you can argue that it's wrong to support the meat industry (in the same way that it might be wrong to sponsor a serial killer who would continue with the same amount of killing even if I were to withdraw my sponsorship), and so that it's wrong to buy meat, but that argument hasn't been made yet (although such a claim has been made by @frank).

And it's the same reasons I have for not kicking my cat or my dog. It's so obviously true that my dog suffers if I hurt her, and that her suffering is akin to my suffering, that I know hurting her is wrong. — NKBJ

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

And, to be honest, most meat eaters don't defend the idea of harming or killing animals when it comes to cats, dogs, dolphins, chimpanzees, etc.

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

I don't recall anyone saying it here, but I am reminded of how ironic it is when people think vegans are crazy or ridiculous, when all we're saying is "don't eat the cows, just eat a veggie burger" and omnis say things like "in order to justify my cow burger, it's okay to eat a human burger."

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

And some humans are not conscious to the same degree as other humans - therefore the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for deciding who lives and who dies. — Harry Hindu

Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good. — Sapientia

The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.

"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything. — Harry Hindu

No, that's not what you said to me. That might have been what you meant to suggest, but I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked you what your point was. — Sapientia

That is what I said to you. READ.

The degree of consciousness should be factored into consideration with regard to appropriate treatment, and that is my point.

And I don't really care about whacky hypotheticals. Why should I? — Sapientia

I think you have a more serious problem of not being able to read and address others' posts appropriately. Nothing I said was hypothetical.

But we, as humans, have a higher capacity for moral value and therefore have an obligation to use it to create less harm and less pain. Although a lion may not understand what is being done to them in a "good" or "bad" sense, they know that pain is something they want to avoid. And we share that same trait with them, as humans want to avoid pain as well. Whether you call it "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. — chatterbears

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it "wrong"/"bad" to eat animals?

What does it even mean to say that "humans have a higher capacity for moral value"? Humans have the capacity to put themselves in others' shoes. We think that other people and animals think and want the same things we do. They don't. So all you are doing is applying your own rules to others. As I told you before, morals and ethics are subjective and are not applicable across the board in every situation for every organism.

The reason this thread has gone on pointlessly is because most of you are looking at it all wrong. Basically every ethical/moral dilemma comes down to questioning the nature of ethics/morals themselves. Instead of trying to make oneself consistent with one's ethical positions (which we all find nearly impossible), we should be questioning the basis of ethics and what it really means to be "moral".

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

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

We've already established that there's nothing wrong with eating a cow burger. Your issue has been with killing and harming animals. So, presumably, eating a cow that has died naturally is morally acceptable? But then what of eating a human that has died naturally? Many people might say that that would be unacceptable. — Michael

Eating an animal that has died of natural causes may even be the morally correct thing to do if otherwise it were to go to waste or putrefy and cause disease etc. However, there are some pretty good reasons no eat animals that have died of natural causes since natural causes include diseases, infections and so on. Eating a healthy animal that has died accidentally is another matter.

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

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

Do you regard the efficient use of environmental resources as an urgent issue? I — MetaphysicsNow

Yep. Lab meat should use 10% of the land and water, produce 10% of the emissions. So there are huge environmental and economic arguments in its favour.

An effective general veganism will almost surely happen for ordinary pragmatic reasons.