The [Just say, "fuck animals"](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/5umewu/just_say_fuck_animals/) thread compeled me to reflect a bit and advance this post inquiry in an attempt to dissect the logical foundations of the vegan principle.
I can see how vegans feel that there's a lot of hypocrisy regarding beliefs and attitudes that relate to animal well-being. But it seems unfair and shortsighted to assume that everyone who eats meat basically doesn't care about animals, imo.
I'm omni, and I openly admit that I have no issue with the view that human 'responsibility' towards other animals needs not be any different from that of a predator towards its prey. I do not find it moraly wrong to kill an animal to eat it.
But neither do I relate to the "fuck animals" mind frame. While I can't say I 'love' animals (can't compute that kind of rhetoric), I like animals and …show more content…
I'll go ahead and question, in what way is ending a sentient experience for feeding purposes more morally abominable (contentious) than a non-sentient experience?
And if sentience is an issue, then what would be the difference between killing a plant and an unconscious animal?
And by valueing sentience, aren't we basically constraining our consideration for other beings through a batantly antropocentric view (and is this fair?)?
If we have no 'right' to cease the life of an animal, then what 'right' do we have to cease the life of a plant?
Yet, removing both sources of food would lead to starvation. It just so happens that all food derives from biological sources. And given the similarities between all eukaryote life forms at the molecular and genetic level, how can we possibly come up with a logically coherent 'moral'/'ethical' framework that values one life form over the other without antropomorphic bias?
Aren't the vegan values adopted as premises, ultimately, arbitrarily chosen?
Try to present a coherent logical framework for these questions that justifies
I can see how vegans feel that there's a lot of hypocrisy regarding beliefs and attitudes that relate to animal well-being. But it seems unfair and shortsighted to assume that everyone who eats meat basically doesn't care about animals, imo.
I'm omni, and I openly admit that I have no issue with the view that human 'responsibility' towards other animals needs not be any different from that of a predator towards its prey. I do not find it moraly wrong to kill an animal to eat it.
But neither do I relate to the "fuck animals" mind frame. While I can't say I 'love' animals (can't compute that kind of rhetoric), I like animals and …show more content…
I'll go ahead and question, in what way is ending a sentient experience for feeding purposes more morally abominable (contentious) than a non-sentient experience?
And if sentience is an issue, then what would be the difference between killing a plant and an unconscious animal?
And by valueing sentience, aren't we basically constraining our consideration for other beings through a batantly antropocentric view (and is this fair?)?
If we have no 'right' to cease the life of an animal, then what 'right' do we have to cease the life of a plant?
Yet, removing both sources of food would lead to starvation. It just so happens that all food derives from biological sources. And given the similarities between all eukaryote life forms at the molecular and genetic level, how can we possibly come up with a logically coherent 'moral'/'ethical' framework that values one life form over the other without antropomorphic bias?
Aren't the vegan values adopted as premises, ultimately, arbitrarily chosen?
Try to present a coherent logical framework for these questions that justifies