Actually, the other reply isn't complete or coherent enough either, and I humbly apologize. Let's put it this way. The argument pro-"zoophile" states that animals can and do consent, mostly by "instinct" or behaviors. (incomplete, I know, but ties to the core of your vegan question) The agument presented here against this states that animals can not consent. Read "can not", not "do not".
Again, the reason animals are eaten, tested upon, etc. is that they can not consent, not do not consent. The moral argument is very different than what you interpret in terms of veganism. The credible ethical debate on eating animals, testing, etc. switches to other factors, such as weighing benefits to society against the suffering of the animal, etc. and is ongoing and has too many facets to argue here.
In fact, if the vegan argument tried to state that eating animals is unethical because they DO not consent, THAT is actually the argument that has the slippery moral ground, because it also suggests there are things that animals can and do consent to... Not that I believe in this slippery slope argument, either. But this is why informed consent isn't used in the credible pro-vegan arguments
On the flip side, someone munching a burger at McDonald's believes that animals can not consent. [Trying to add a do or do not argument to eating meat has been used to extreme comic effect by Douglas Addams in the "Hitchiker's Guide" series] The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
It could be said that by stating that unless someone is a vegan they are on shaky ground making a moral argument againt bestiality, that eating animals is roughly morally equivalent to bestiality. I don't think that's what you're trying to say. I'm not going to say it, because I don't believe it. I do know that there are some vegans out there that will argue that point. But they don't credibly make it by using informed consent, and I haven't seen the more rational pro-vegan arguments presented that way.
All I will say is that whether I or anyone else making this particular moral argument is vegan is irrelevant. So I'm not going to wander into that distraction by answering if I am now or have I ever been a Vegan (or meat-eater depending on your perspective) because that argument really is different and doesn't apply to the particular one being made here.
Actually, the other reply isn't complete or coherent enough either, and I humbly apologize. Let's put it this way. The argument pro-"zoophile" states that animals can and do consent, mostly by "instinct" or behaviors. (incomplete, I know, but ties to the core of your vegan question) The agument presented here against this states that animals can not consent. Read "can not", not "do not".
Again, the reason animals are eaten, tested upon, etc. is that they can not consent, not do not consent. The moral argument is very different than what you interpret in terms of veganism. The credible ethical debate on eating animals, testing, etc. switches to other factors, such as weighing benefits to society against the suffering of the animal, etc. and is ongoing and has too many facets to argue here.
In fact, if the vegan argument tried to state that eating animals is unethical because they DO not consent, THAT is actually the argument that has the slippery moral ground, because it also suggests there are things that animals can and do consent to... Not that I believe in this slippery slope argument, either. But this is why informed consent isn't used in the credible pro-vegan arguments
On the flip side, someone munching a burger at McDonald's believes that animals can not consent. [Trying to add a do or do not argument to eating meat has been used to extreme comic effect by Douglas Addams in the "Hitchiker's Guide" series] The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
It could be said that by stating that unless someone is a vegan they are on shaky ground making a moral argument againt bestiality, that eating animals is roughly morally equivalent to bestiality. I don't think that's what you're trying to say. I'm not going to say it, because I don't believe it. I do know that there are some vegans out there that will argue that point. But they don't credibly make it by using informed consent, and I haven't seen the more rational pro-vegan arguments presented that way.
All I will say is that whether I or anyone else making this particular moral argument is vegan is irrelevant. So I'm not going to wander into that distraction by answering if I am now or have I ever been a Vegan (or meat-eater depending on your perspective) because that argument really is different and doesn't apply to the particular one being made here.
-Bluesman