Veganism

[Angrboda]

Common usage of the word human implies that the property of being human exists.  It matters not how that property is determined to be satisfied.  If you aren't abiding by common usage, you are equivocating.

Not abiding by common usage doesn't necessarily entail equivocation.

I never said that it did.

But even if we don't ask those questions. We can simply accept that being human is, for example, being a member of the species homo sapiens. If that is what being human is *and* if the property of being human is what makes it not acceptable to kill and eat a creature and the property of not being human is what makes it acceptable to kill and eat a creature then this entails that it's acceptable to kill and eat a creature very, very similar to a human that isn't technically of the same species. So the question then becomes: is that truly acceptable? If not, then we may have to revise our standard of what makes it acceptable/unacceptable to kill and eat a creature.

That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that as long as there is a category of being human, then the ethical question lies elsewhere than debating what does or doesn't make one human. Common usage implies that there is such a thing. For any specific ethical question, if that is the case, the particulars do not really matter. The problem is that the questions of any substance lie deeper than just twiddling the knobs regarding what is a human, yet you are obsessed with what isn't really much of a question as you, ostensibly, believe that one can resolve the ethical questions by resolving this question. It does not and cannot.

And what you wrote doesn't even remotely follow. If being human makes an organism's unjustified killing immoral, it is not entailed that such with something not human is also immoral. That doesn't obviously follow which suggests you are making assumptions beyond anything you've argued or has been accepted.