Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[bennyboy]

Species? But why not just stop at gender? Or race?

Because evolution works at the species level, and I believe moral judgement is an evolved psychological mechanism which serves to increase the survivability of the species. Therefore it makes no sense to apply it at either a finer or greater granularity, except insofar as there are indirect consequences for species survival from doing so.

All our motivated behaviors are evolved, or at least are rooted in our evolution, and in a civilized society, few of them contribute to our genetic survival. Men, for example, have the desire to have sex with as many women as possible; nobody would argue that misogyny is for this reason a good basis for a moral system. Sure, you could spin some speculative Butterfly Effect chain where you imagine that things considered moral will really have an effect on our species' survival. But you'd be hard-pressed to establish any factual basis for this, since there are 7 billion of us fuckers currently swarming all over the planet.

The rest of your argument was nothing more than an appeal to the slippery slope, and is thus a non sequitur.

Debatey words are not an argument, either, especially when used wrongly. There's no appeal to a slippery slope here-- I'm not arguing that moral positions on meat-eating have any consequence on other kinds of morality. Neither is there a progressive value increment, since I'm not arguing that humans are intrinsically more valuable than people-- that's your argument, not mine. As for non-sequitur, you imply with this that there is some chain of rational arguments that CAN arrive at a moral position (i.e. be sequitur). There's no such thing. Value choices are arbitrary. I just happen to think that choosing the non-suffering of animals over deliberately-inflicted suffering a clear winner. Unless there is some mechanism of justice involved, then why would I want to knowingly contribute to the suffering of another being? As far as I know, cows have not violated our rights in any meaningful way, and have therefore not earned the misfortune of suffering at our hands. "Yummy" is not a very good moral argument.

And again you've yet to give a reason for your moral claim. That the "trend" has been to extend protection to an ever wider net is an appeal to tradition, and is thus another non sequitur.

The reason is that animals suffer, and that the willingness to accept limitations on one's own behavior to prevent suffering in others is one of the most sensible bases for a moral system. This is my reason: that it is wrong to knowingly inflict suffering on those who do not inflict suffering on you.

The only thing approaching a moral claim is that we should correct inequity if we see it. That's an implied claim that the lives of food animals have equal worth to our own (inequality/inequity); and that's just a bare assertion.

So is the assertion that a black man is equal in value to a white man, or that a woman is equal in value to a man. Lacking any objective measure of value, we are left with subjective measures, and those in power ususally end up defining values for the rest. I'd define the condition of being subject to an arbitrary value system, without being able to challenge or refute those value assignments, as the fundament of injustice. You are now safely entrenched in a position of power, and so the plight of those less at your mercy is an irrelevant detail. But as a woman, can you really not feel any sympathy for those who are still at the mercy of those whom they have never harmed?