Originally Posted by Arnox

The reason why is because I could give several arguments for someone, or at least show a gap in their logic, regarding the rights of animals. Most people have pets, and they understand to some degree that their pets are able to feel pain, and experience other negative emotions. The extension of this is well, if you appreciate that your animals can experience pain, surely you can appreciate that what you also ate had to experience pain as well.





1. As a default of moral choice, one should only partake in activities for which the level of pleasure results is more so than the level of pain that results.

2. The level of pain that results in commercial farming of animals for human consumption outweighs the level of pleasure that results.

3. QED, one should default to a position where they do not support or partake in the activities of argument 2.

-

This is just one argument. I can give you a few more, they'd probably be a hybrid of morality and environmental arguments. If you're genuinely interested, I suggest you listen to this whole video. It's Peter Singer, and he's incredibly thorough in his arguments for veganism. Probably my favorite philosopher.