![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipFor the following questions, I am using the phrase "sentient-free diet" to mean food intake that is not based on the premature killing of living animals. By "sentient" I mean the etymologically correct term, capable of feeling (capable of thinking is sapience). Such a diet can include vegetarians, vegans, and even people who eat carrion.
What are the best ethical reason *against* a sentient-free diet or similar? For example, the argument eating grains is worse as industrial grain productions cause the violent deaths of lots of little rodents.
I am not interested in the aesthetic reasons; yes, animals are delicious, but it is difficult to ethically argue that one's sensual desires are above the desire for another sentient being not to be eaten.
Is the consumption of one animal more or less ethically justified than another? Yes, I've seen the funny modification on the PETA "where do you draw the line" billboard. Funny, but not entirely an ethical argument. Are oysters vegan (no really, look it up)? What about consensual cannibalism among humans?
If there are no or few acceptable ethical reasons against such sentient-free diets, what are the ethical reasons against it being compulsory? "Free choice" is probably a bad argument here, because there is a victim involved and extending that reasoning would be interesting. What are the exceptions where sentient consumption is justified?
Nota bene: I recognise that there are some nutrients necessary for humans that are only found via animal-products. For example, choline which is important for brain health, vitamin B12 for the production of your red blood cells and functioning of the nervous system, and some omega-3 fatty acids. Supplements are available and necessary for all these in a sentient-free diet.
What are the best ethical reason *against* a sentient-free diet or similar? For example, the argument eating grains is worse as industrial grain productions cause the violent deaths of lots of little rodents.
I am not interested in the aesthetic reasons; yes, animals are delicious, but it is difficult to ethically argue that one's sensual desires are above the desire for another sentient being not to be eaten.
Is the consumption of one animal more or less ethically justified than another? Yes, I've seen the funny modification on the PETA "where do you draw the line" billboard. Funny, but not entirely an ethical argument. Are oysters vegan (no really, look it up)? What about consensual cannibalism among humans?
If there are no or few acceptable ethical reasons against such sentient-free diets, what are the ethical reasons against it being compulsory? "Free choice" is probably a bad argument here, because there is a victim involved and extending that reasoning would be interesting. What are the exceptions where sentient consumption is justified?
Nota bene: I recognise that there are some nutrients necessary for humans that are only found via animal-products. For example, choline which is important for brain health, vitamin B12 for the production of your red blood cells and functioning of the nervous system, and some omega-3 fatty acids. Supplements are available and necessary for all these in a sentient-free diet.
