Heck, I support people becoming vegans - it lowers the price of meat for me.
Not necessarily. You might get "sale" meat in the short term, but over time the cost could go up as production costs have to keep up with less demand.
I just don't argue your logic because I don't really care about whether something is a logical fallacy or not. For example you say that people are animals (true) but then imply that somehow that animals are the same as people (untrue) and seem to try to pull out some sort of pitty move as though they are second hand citizens.
Many non human animals share the same characteristics as humans do. We are sentient beings that can experience pain or pleasure, experience complex emotions, are intelligent, etc. These are morally relevant characteristics. And they are based on FACT not pity.
It's obvious that you don't care about fallacious reasoning because your arguments tend to depend on it. You just said that it is untrue that animals are the same as humans which begs the question: in what respect? Second, calling my arguments "pity moves" is clearly an appeal to emotion. Hate to break it to you but your reasoning sucks REGARDLESS of whether you care or not.
That's a false analogy. Gravity is a law of science.
I assumed ethics was a thouroughly naturalistic
like the empirical sciences. That
would be a false analogy. My claim is that ethics and the empirical sciences are similarly truth apt
. It is true that gravity exists and it is true that the holocaust is wrong.
It wouldn't even be unscientific to kill and eat you. No natural laws conflict with it after all. Just our own personal subjective ethical ones (plenty of people historically would have no problem doing just that).
What's ok to eat and what's not is completely subjective based on one's personal morality. Many people here eat pigs. Many would find that terrible. Almost no one eats dogs and find the idea to be terrible. Yes millions of people in this world do. All involved have all kinds of "logic" to back that up but really it's just their own feelings on the matter.
And this is why your view of ethics is utterly unpersuasive. First, you keep on begging the question about the nature of ethical reasoning and obviously havn't carefully considered the literature, at all. Ethical subjectivism is stupid. Period.
Second, There IS disagreement about the ethics of eating animals throughout the world. Taking a head count doesn't justify what position is correct. Only reasons do. And so far you havn't offered any worthy of that.
That is precisely my point. Just as you don't consider plants to be morally considerable, I don't consider a chicken to be morally considerable. Which life forms are morally considerable is a debate on its own.
Well for starters I never said anything about what MY position is about the moral considerability of plants. That is a straw man on your part. I will say, however, that I DO have a criterion for moral consideration:
For all X, A is morally considerable if and only if A has an interest.
How one defines "interests" though is a debate, so I agree with you there. But you havn't defined "interests"
As far as continuums go, if you are ok with plants, then how about bacteria? if bacteria is ok, how about small multicell animals like zooplankton? if thats ok, how about invertibrates like worms,snails? insects? fish? lizards?... I agree that there is no difference in degree amongst morally considerable beings as far as judging whether an action is moral or not. My point is, where an animal falls on the continuum determines whether it is morally considerable or not
I do think there is a difference in degree. For starters, I think harm to an adult human being in some cases can be worse than harm to some non human animals, babies, infants, the severely cognitively impaired, etc. The harder cases that you mention (if those cases are morally considerable) don't logically entail we don't know anything about the cases we do have good ideas about e.g. lighting a cat on fire is agonizing for the cat.
And you're not making sense in terms of how you use "continum". Either something is morally considerable or it's not- that's a category. Within the category of moral consideration though there might be a difference in terms of significance. Hence, a continum.
Eating some farmer sausages right now, coming from Winkler Manitoba, that is some good stuff. Say what you want, I bet the mammoths our ancestors ate felt a lot more pain and suffering as they died slowly from dozens of spears and arrows than any factory-raised animals do today. We've evolved to eat a wider range of food items than just about any other species and it's adaptive, I see no reason we should stop eating meat. It's gotten us this far. If y'all don't want to eat meat that's your business but it's human nature, it takes a real focused commitment not to.
The Manitoba Pig Livestock Industry is a wonderful thing, isn't it?