Animal Slavery

[sven]

Which means that so is this. You've already been shown alternative arguments.

None of them is a good basis for a moral argument. For the most part, they amount to the "We are special, so we can do what we want" variety, or naturalistic arguments. Naturalistic arguments fail because we don't apply them to other aspects of our lives-- special pleading is a kind of hypocrisy. "We are special" arguments fail because anyone/anything can be considered special, making the argument meaningless in establishing or defining a sensible morality.

I recommend you stop using metacommentary words like "You've been shown" or "has already been explained to you." You and the other posters here aren't a definitive authority on the subjects of morality or slavery, so your implied appeal to authority is a poor substitute for actual arguments.

If I thought like that, things could get really confused for me. I mean, who or what is a definite authority on anything, if there is no higher power 'daddy' who tells us what is right and what is wrong?
It's tempting to say 'use common sense'. But not so long ago (at least from a cosmic perspective) human slavery appeared to be not merely justified to a lot of people, but the right thing to do. To them it was just convenient and common sense to enslave Africans. (They also found justification in the Bible, I've heard).
If one asks 'what gives us the right to (anything)' one has to arrive at the answer: 'nothing' if there is no higher power or authority than man. We have to give ourselves rights. I'm not saying there isn't a higher power -- its just that if there is, we have been unable to establish reliable communications with he/she/it.