Re: afternoon tea

I have to agree to agree with (the first) Nick here on the distinction between humans and non-humans. When challenged, defenders of meat-eating are quick to point out that of course they don't think 'human' as a biological kind is morally relevant, and they mean to use 'human' to describe rational, moral etc agents, which does seem to be a more relevant factor. However it is then claimed that severely mentally retarded humans are still humans and so cannot be maltreated. This is a clear cut case of equivocation over the definition of "human," since it is being claimed that humans (biological kind) cannot be maltreated as they are humans (rational agents)! The reason that we should cut out the word "human" from ethical discussion is precisely because people tend to try to straddle the two different meanings of "human," even whilst the two meanings do not show any conceptual overlap. If being rational is morally relevant (and I admit I'm not sure it is), then just being the same species as some rational agents doesn't seem to matter.

On another note, I wonder whether apart from meat-eating being wrong, is defending meat eating wrong. It seems to me that all of this high-and-mighty discussion about how we ought to treat animals and whether we can find some loophole allowing us to continue to slaughter and consume animals is rather dispassionate and uncaring about suffering, and only cares about whether some way can be found to carry on enjoying ourselves at others' expense. Perhaps this kind of uncaring and completely unsympathetic attitude is itself wrong? I think it is, but perhaps this is controversial?

Sorry to repeat Nick, but even if eating animals isn't always wrong, then it still has to be accepted, surely that current conditions of animal husbandry are so dreadful that all consumption of animals must stop now. Perhaps there should not be widespread veganism on every possible world, but there should be on this one?