Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[Angrboda]

Secondly, I would argue against species as criteria relevant to ethics because it is a category without any real boundaries, but is merely useful to describe evolution. When in evolution did humans become humans? Lets say we define species as animals that can breed together to produce fertile offspring. Now you would not be able to breed with some early hominid, and we could therefore say you are of different species. But if we go back in evolutionary time to the transition between early hominids and humans one will find intermediate hominids that can breed both with humans and early hominids. This is how evolution progresses, through small steps and not abrupt changes. Because of that one could argue that those intermediate hominids were just another "race" of humans, and if that is so the early hominids that can breed with the intermediate hominids are also just another "race" of humans. One can do this same process all the way back for to the common ancestors of all sexually reproducing animals. So are therefore all sexually reproducing animals "human", and if so do not all animals deserve ethical consideration? It sounds nonsensical, but is really just a problem with the ambiguity of the word "species".

I think this is an example of the fallacy of the beard. Just because it can be difficult to define the boundary does not mean there is no boundary.