I never said that humans and nonhumans were little different. The only thing I've argued that humans and nonhumans share, in fact, is the basic welfare interest in not being harmed.

Basic welfare interests include, but are not necessarily limited to, the continuance of one's life, physical health and vigor, the integrity and normal functioning of one's body, the absence of absorbing pain and suffering, emotional stability, a tolerable social and physical environment, and a certain amount of freedom from interference and coercion. These welfare interests are the very most important interests, not only because they are definitive of basic well-being, but also because their realization is necessary before one can satisfy virtually any other interest or do much of anything with one's life. We cannot achieve our ulterior interests in a career or personal relationships or material gain if we are unhealthy, in chronic pain, emotionally unstable, living in intolerable conditions, and are constantly interfered with and coerced by others. When basic welfare interests are defeated, a very serious harm has been done to the sentient possessor of those interests, no matter what species it belongs to.

They may not have human perceptual experiences or states, but that's morally irrelevant.

And you haven't responded to the dilemma where seriously mentally impaired humans possess mental capacities lower than some primates. Are we not permitted to kill and eat those humans? Why?

Explain.

Basic welfare interests include, but are not necessarily limited to, the continuance of one's life, physical health and vigor, the integrity and normal functioning of one's body, the absence of absorbing pain and suffering, emotional stability, a tolerable social and physical environment, and a certain amount of freedom from interference and coercion.

If it's morally irrelevant, what in the world would you eat if plants were deemed to "feel", to have the same interest of not being harmed? I believe it's very relevant. I'm not entirely sure which creatures have this interest of not wanting to be harmed and which do not. If we extrapolate this out to the microbial level, could bacteria be regarded (by their actions in surviving) as having this interest of not being harmed? The interest of not being harmed is not sufficient, in my opinion. If we regarded bacteria has having this interest, you unknowingly destroy thousands of bacteria daily (this is something we do know), thus putting a dent into this moral conclusion.

This is a very good question, and I can only respond from my personal notions. Cannibalism is undesirable to me; this is not necessarily for any moral reason, but the same reason I don't enjoy cow's brain: The thought of the substance makes me ill. We are not permitted to kill and eat humans by law.

Morals are man-made and therefore ever changing to suite man at any particular time, so if your argument is based on morals, it would follow that your argument would also be ever changing.

More seriously, I reject premise (6) on the grounds that humans are carnivores first, moral animals second: that is to say that biological imperatives override moral ones ALWAYS. If you wish to override that biological imperative, good on you. I perceive this as a morally positive act. If you do not, fine: this is a morally neutral act. The negation is not the opposite, and all that.

I don't think you've seriously considered the logical implications of your principle which states that "biological imperatives always override morality." For example, a universal biological imperative for every species is reproductive success; in particular, reproductive success determines which genes make it into succeeding generations. Now, for reasons I will leave open to the readers' imagination, person A is having great difficulty achieving reproductive success. Note that we have a moral prohibition (X) against rape in civil society. However, person A disregards X and rapes person B to fulfill his biological imperative to reproduce. Biological imperatives override moral prohibitions, remember, so we cannot hold person A morally responsible, much less heed the court appeals of person B, the raped victim. Sorry, person B, but your rape was a "morally neutral event," since person A's biological need to spread his seed overrides morality, always.

This is one of many examples. Perhaps you should reconsider?

No, I anticipated your response. I actually started to type: "and before you bring rape up..." but it caused clutter.

Sexual reproduction is a biological imperative; rape is not. Similarly eating meat is a biological imperative for a carnivore, but eating cage chickens is not. In short, there's a difference between a biological imperative and how that imperative is manifested at a given instance. I'm sure you understand that difference.

The distinction you're making between "sexual reproduction" and "rape" is a moral one, which is inconsistent with your position that biological imperatives always override morality. From a purely biological perspective, rape is sexual intercourse, period. The fact that the intercourse is non-consensual is a moral consideration that, according to your position, cannot override the rapists' biological imperative to achieve reproductive success.

But I do not morally judge someone who eats meat or has sex, for this is their nature.

Okay, so you're maintaining that it is natural for people to eat meat. That is, you claim that we have evolved to eat animal products and that eating meat is what nature intends us to do. To not eat meat is to act in opposition to our "biological imperative" and, therefore, the moral principle that we should not eat meat simply cannot be right, or is easily overidden by appeal to what is "natural" for humanity. Fair enough?

Well, we have evolved to be omnivores. We can eat animal products. But that means merely that we have evolved to be beings who can choose what to eat and who have the choice to live exclusively on plant foods. The fact that we can eat animal products is no more support for the conclusion that eating these products is morally justified as our ability to engage in violence is support for the conclusion that war is morally justified. The fact that we can do something is not relevant to whether we should do it. This, too, should be fairly obvious.

It is clear that it is not necessary for us to eat any animal products. And the evidence mounts daily that animal products ingested in the quantities that characterize the diets of those in wealthier nations is detrimental to health. At any rate, my (revised) argument targets the meat industry, not the dietary preferences of individuals. In particular, causing a sentient animal harm is morally wrong because doing so violates its basic welfare interests, the same that we recognize in ourselves.

Okay, so you're maintaining that it is natural for people to eat meat. That is, you claim that we have evolved to eat animal products and that eating meat is what nature intends us to do. To not eat meat is to act in opposition to our "biological imperative" and, therefore, the moral principle that we should not eat meat simply cannot be right, or is easily overidden by appeal to what is "natural" for humanity. Fair enough?

Well, we have evolved to be omnivores. We can eat animal products. But that means merely that we have evolved to be beings who can choose what to eat and who have the choice to live exclusively on plant foods. The fact that we can eat animal products is no more support for the conclusion that eating these products is morally justified as our ability to engage in violence is support for the conclusion that war is morally justified. The fact that we can do something is not relevant to whether we should do it. This, too, should be fairly obvious.

It is clear that it is not necessary for us to eat any animal products. And the evidence mounts daily that animal products ingested in the quantities that characterize the diets of those in wealthier nations is detrimental to health. At any rate, my (revised) argument targets the meat industry, not the dietary preferences of individuals. In particular, causing a sentient animal harm is morally wrong because doing so violates its basic welfare interests, the same that we recognize in ourselves.

Well, we have evolved to be omnivores. We can eat animal products. But that means merely that we have evolved to be beings who can choose what to eat and who have the choice to live exclusively on plant foods.

The fact that we can eat animal products is no more support for the conclusion that eating these products is morally justified as our ability to engage in violence is support for the conclusion that war is morally justified.

It is clear that it is not necessary for us to eat any animal products. And the evidence mounts daily that animal products ingested in the quantities that characterize the diets of those in wealthier nations is detrimental to health. At any rate, my (revised) argument targets the meat industry, not the dietary preferences of individuals. In particular, causing a sentient animal harm is morally wrong because doing so violates its basic welfare interests, the same that we recognize in ourselves.

Here we are in complete agreement, and I alluded to this earlier in my reference to battery chickens as an example. The meat industry is despicable, and I try to encourage people to support ethically sourced food always.

Defending killing and eating animals is morally wrong

The website administrator renamed the thread; don't blame me!