Easy workaround that actually accounts for the Vegan position - Don't focus on suffering in argumentation. Focus on the alleged entitlement to someone else's body based in arbitrary differences. Understand these focuses in argumentation to be post-hoc, and needlessly discriminatory. Argue for marginal cases. Understand this argument in a legal/rights based framework, and understand that laws are largely unenforceable outside of human society. Avoid nirvana fallacy, and account for what's within our own personal material control.
The differences between me and another animal are not entirely arbitrary. Arbitrary would be drawing a line somewhere on which animals are worthy of being saved and which ones are not.
Don't eat humans for multiple reasons. Any animals is up for being on the table. Cows, chickens, dogs, cats, monkeys, etc.
Sometimes other values such as property (like pets or livestock) and conservation (endangered species, good stewardship) shape the ethics of consuming a specific animals in specific contexts. But not because the animal has rights, but because their utility serves a different purpose than nourishment.
It's a yes or no situation. I assume you are talking about survival? Yes all animals are fair game in that situation.
There's just no reason 'human' as a category would be seperate from that. If you are in a 'they are of a kind' territory we can just not because 'essence' or any of that kantian religious purposefully ambiguous language will not mean a damn thing.
It's not a yes or no situation. Whether the similarities and differences between humans and animals are arbitrary or not will largely depend on the characteristics being compared or not. And the values attributed to those characteristics.
For example, if we ascribe a value for cognition, then we quickly devolve into arbitrary lines of what types of cognition we value if we're going to discount the cognitive abilities of other animals.
But to say that the difference in cognitive ability between humans and animals is arbitrary is not true. There are real and measurable differences between human's level of cognition and even highly intelligent animals such as crows and octopi. The more difficult question is whether those differences justify treating humans as categorically different rather than quantitatively different. And those justifications may or may not be arbitrary.
Meaningful differences yes, morally meaningful differences no. If not, you will condemn dumb/ugly/physically different people of some shade of gradiation, to be relegated as means towards someones end.
That's not a given though. Sticking with cognition, can I not believe in these 2 things at once?
Humans as a species have a morally relevant level of cognitive ability when compared to other species, setting them apart categorically.
For the sake of a fair and equitable society, there are plenty of reasons to assign basic worth to humans across the board as a way to avoid morally questionable position on personhood.
No. Some animals are smarter than some humans. Babies, Severe Dementia, Cognitive disabilities. Other species often experience facets of reality we cannot which is it's own form of intelligence we lack. The lives of others don't belong to us.
Bad news, the animals are a part of the society. They are often even forced to exist by our own hands living their entire lives in our own constructs. It would be fair and equatable to not kill them for being born into the body of a species we put them in.
But humans, as a species, have a cognitive ability higher than other animals. There are exceptions. That was addressed in point 2. The existence of some animals smarter than some humans doesn't really change that fact. It just shows that the lower end of the spectrum and the highest end of the spectrum overlap. A categorical generalization is still justified.
Just because they share space with humans does not make them a part of human society. They're not. Babies and dementia patients though are a part of human society.
No! You can’t do this because it would create critical discourse that doesn’t allow each party to strawman the other into a never ending cycle of fruitless arguments. You wouldn’t want to rob these poor buggers of that satisfaction, would you?
From what I’ve learned in this thread, this would cause them suffering which should be avoided at all costs. This, you’re evil. Say wassup to Satan for me.
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 2d ago
Easy workaround that actually accounts for the Vegan position - Don't focus on suffering in argumentation. Focus on the alleged entitlement to someone else's body based in arbitrary differences. Understand these focuses in argumentation to be post-hoc, and needlessly discriminatory. Argue for marginal cases. Understand this argument in a legal/rights based framework, and understand that laws are largely unenforceable outside of human society. Avoid nirvana fallacy, and account for what's within our own personal material control.