Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

The question is, on what basis would you think it moral to inflcit unnecessary pain and suffering on another animal for the trivial reason of liking the taste of meat?

On the basis of the pain and suffering of another animal, provided it is the right animal, is even more trivial to what I value than the taste of meat.

---

This is getting silly and away from the point.

It is exactly on the point because the purpose of morality informs what can and can not be deemed immoral.

if the purpose of morality is to smooth transactions within human society and thus improve the fitness of society by eliminating unproductive friction. Morality ought not to have anything to say about killing an animal for its meat if its suffering does not cause unproductive friction in human society.

On the other hand, if the purpose of morality is to impose one's own capriciosu squeamishness upon others, then one may deem anything immoral that isn't doesn't suite one's own taske.

By your reasoning then, any amolunt of pain and suffering inflicted on any other species is of no moral or ethical concern. WOW