Argument: "It's silly to say that we shouldn't eat meat when our hominid ancestors and primate cousins have been eating meat for many thousands of years.
If it is as you say and we are no more important that the animals, how can we be held to a different standard? They kill for food, so can we."
Here are my thoughts:
With greater understanding comes greater responsibility.
We must consider the improved capabilities that we have compared to other of our Creator's creations, and use them wisely and with love and compassion.
We have the capability of reasoning about whether it is ethical to take the life of another of our Creator's sapient being and this responsibility shouldn't be taking lightly.
To without any evidence assume a religious book, or assume what anyone else teaches about moral including killing sapient beings, to be correct isn't using all of the capabilities that we have.
How can we assume that the Creator wants us to prematurely take the life of His other sapient beings? Who gave us this right? We do not own them and we don't own their life.
Is an immoral individual of less value to the Creator?
Do we judge individuals based on if they are doing their best according to their understanding?
Does an increasing understanding of the Will of our Creator lead to an increased responsibility to act according to our increased understanding?
Does the act of starting to behave more morally cause an individual to be of more value to the Creator; and vice versa?
Why do people claim that we are allowed to take innocent animals life, but not the life of innocent men? Where is the consistency?
What would give man the right to take another sapient beings life?
Related to this behaviour: Where is the logic, where is the love, where is the compassion?
Where is the care for the animals life? Where is the care for their family?
How would you answer it?
What do you think about the above answer? How can it be improved?
Have a wonderful day!!! :)