So if slavery is reinstated it would be OK for me to buy some slaves? I mean, they’ve already been enslaved. It’d be a shame to waste perfectly good slaves.
Is that really a given? If I get lost in the Savannah and a bunch of lions kill me and devour me, you’d be hard pressed to argue that they are unjustified in doing so because of their inability to prove their superiority. To a lion, I am food; if it eats me, it’s just being a lion. Superiority doesn’t enter into it.
If slavery has been reinstated, we’ve got a lot more important things to be working on than wastefulness. A society where slavery was the norm wouldn’t even be considering the personhood of dolphins.
Ah, so you’d rather dodge the question that the analogy raises than answer it.
Lions aren’t capable of questioning the morality of eating other creatures, nor are they capable of finding alternatives. The OP is. So if you’re in this thread arguing that animals are our equals you’d better be a vegan, too. And you’d better have an argument ready for why we aren’t superior to plants. I mean, PLANTS can do things that we can’t, too.
No, it’s just a crap analogy. Had you asked would I continue to wear my comfy Adidas knowing they were made in a Malaysian sweatshop, I’d still say “Yes.”, unless someone else offered a similar product at a reasonable price.
I can only shop in the markets that are available to me, and being human, and feeling somewhat self-entitled because of it - but more as a result of nurture than nature, I’d bet - I tend towards whatever option is most convenient. It’s a failing I am aware of and try not to succumb to too much.
No, it wasn’t.
If you think that animals are our equals, you don’t continue to eat them because of the evil packaging companies who make it so convenient. Just like if you think that slavery is evil, you don’t participate by purchasing slaves.
And you could make the argument that there aren’t any alternatives if you were living in poverty, perhaps. But if you’re like most of the posters on this board, you’re not. Veganism is an option to you.
By that logic, our mental and emotional complexity (i.e. our superiority) is a reason we shouldn’t eat other animals.
Being able to question whether we should eat meat or not is evidence of our superiority, yes.
Thankfully and, perhaps, conveniently, I don’t think animals are our equals and I’m fine with eating them.
My argument is simply that if you do think that they are our equals, it’s morally inconsistent to eat them.
I’m not saying animals are our equals. That would be stating the obvious, when we are animals, albeit ones with higher cognitive functions than others. But that can be said for the animal species to which we belong. Should the smartest humans be endowed with more “rights” than lesser-developed humans?
But, to answer your slave analogy, say I buy them to set them free? Am I still assisting the system?
First of all, I’m aware that we’re animals. Whenever someone says ‘animal’ they’re using it as a simple way to refer to non-human species. Let’s dispense with the semantics. As for your question- we’re talking about whole species, not individuals. No, I don’t think the smartest humans should be endowed with more rights than others.
Nope. But my analogy implied purchasing them for their labor. So I’ll rephrase it:
If you think that non-human animals are our equals, you don’t continue to eat them because of the evil packaging companies who make it so convenient. Just like if you think that slavery is evil, you don’t participate by exploiting slave labor.
If other animals are our equals, then we are just another omnivorous species. It is no more immoral for us to take our place in the food web than it is for any other omnivorous or carnivorous animal to do so. Holding Homo sapiens to higher standards is inconsistent with declaring it to be the equal of other species. Declaring that no animal is immoral for preying upon any other animal is consistent with declaring all animals equals.
Except that by ‘equal’ people are typically referring to ‘rights’. The idea that animals have just as much of a right not to be eaten as we do. And the idea that they have just as much of a right not to be experimented on as we do.
No, I raise chickens for eggs and meat. I am entitled to eat them because I buy their feed and keep other animals from eating them first. When I kept sheep for wool and meat, the same applied, I fed them and kept them safe.
We don’t have a right not to be eaten. Predators, parasites, and decomposers that eat human flesh aren’t violating any sort of convention or law, and many people don’t even try to stop decomposers from eating the flesh of their deceased loved ones. There are laws and taboos forbidding cannibalism, but that’s an issue separate from interspecies predation.
Experiments on animals just highlight the lack of a correlation between the neurological complexity of a species and the rights we confer upon it. We don’t choose animals for experimentation on the basis of how much or how little they’ll suffer. Chimpanzees, for instance, make excellent subjects because of how similar they are to us, despite (probably) having a greater capacity for suffering than many other mammals. Fruit flies are handy not because of their tiny insect brains, but because they’re easy to handle and they live quick lives. Our refusal to use unwilling human subjects is perhaps parallel to our taboos against cannibalism; we just don’t experiment on our own kind.
Are your chickens your equals?
I do have a right to not be farmed for my meat, though. 
Then why don’t we just perform our experiments on humans? I mean, we aren’t basing who we choose on mental complexity and anatomically humans are our closest living relatives.
Ideally we don’t. But we didn’t live in an ideal world when slave trading was relevant, and we don’t live in one now.
Yeah, I’m vegan. And my argument is more against unexamined assumptions and prejudices than it is about giving cockroaches the vote.
“Safe?” No, you just kept them for yourself. They didn’t end up “safe.”
It’s worth noting that some experiments on primates have troubled the researchers themselves.