Childhood indoctrination

[littleendian]

This is the point of morality being subjective and therefore consensual. You call them victims, we call them food. You feel it is horrible. We feel that they, like ourselves, are part of the food chain. You have exhorted us to rise above our base animal nature. We embrace our animal nature.

Human society has long since abandoned its animal nature in many respects, we don't accept that the stronger can have his way with the weaker for example, rape is outlawed etc. So our animal nature is not always to be trusted as a "moral compass".

Now, I'll grant you that I've also arrived at my conviction by "feeling" that it is wrong to exploit animals in the most barbaric ways, and not only for the victims but also for us, because it dulls our ability for compassion also for humans. But I can also back up my position by reason, and my argument has stood up against fierce attacks from all sides even in this very forum, and I've not yet heard one rational chain of arguments that supports the distinction between human and non-human animals (lets focus on larger vertebrates for now).

My rational argument is: The basis for consideration is not a racial criterium but the ability to suffer, which is ultimately why we acknowledge other's rights, because we ourselves don't want to suffer and therefore don't afflict it on others. This has nothing to do with human or non-human.

Refute this without appealing to the arbitrary category of human/animal or provide your own argument for why theses non-humans don't count, and I'm convinced. Please do so and I'll be the first to devour a juicy steak! If you cannot provide a coherent, rational, non-circular argument for why you feel there is a qualitative line between humans and non-humans then you might commit the same fallacy as many racists and sexists who simply didn't question the status-quo.

edit: toned down a bit