Why 'Animals eat other animals' is no moral justification for consuming meat, milk and eggs.

A person wrote to me: “Does animals not eat other animals? Does carnivores or omnivores other than homo-sapiens refrain from making food out of other animals because thats morally wrong? Why are the rules so different for homo-sapiens. Thats what I call unjustified. “

Who said that there are different rules?
Who said that any species has a moral justification of harming and killing animals only for “palate” pleasure/convenience or tradition? Not me.

A more extensive answer:
Our conventional wisdom says that although animals matter morally, and we need to be able to justify imposing suffering and death on them, humans matter more because of characteristics like their ability to engage in moral reasoning and, in a situation of genuine conflict, animals lose and humans win. And when we are confronted with the fact that our eating animals can’t be justified
because there is no conflict and we eat animals and animal products simply because we enjoy the taste, we say: “but wait—animals eat each other so why can’t we eat them?” Some animals do, indeed, eat other animals.
That’s certainly true. But what relevance does that have to the issue of whether we should consume animal products?

That’s a rhetorical question; the answer is clear: it has no relevance. First, although some animals eat each other in the wild, many do not. Many animals are vegans.
Moreover, there is far more cooperation in nature than what we imagine as the “cruelty of nature.”

Second, whether animals eat other animals is beside the point. How is it relevant whether animals eat other animals? Some animals are carnivorous and cannot exist without eating meat. We do not fall into that category; we can get along fine without eating meat and other animal foods, and more and more people are taking the position that our health and environment would both benefit from a shift away from a diet of animal products.

Third, animals do all sorts of things that humans do not regard as morally appropriate. For example, dogs copulate and defecate in the street. Does that mean that we should follow their example or that humans are justified in engaging in the same behaviors? It is interesting that when it is convenient for us, we attempt to justify our exploitation of animals by resting on our supposed “superiority.” And when our supposed “superiority” gets in the way of what we want to do, we suddenly portray ourselves as nothing more than another species of wild animal,
as entitled as foxes to eat chickens.

In any event, this argument suffers from the problem that any argument encounters that is of the form, “Doing activity X is morally wrong. But person P is doing X. Therefore it is alright to do X.” You can substitute anything for X. Beating up your mother is morally wrong. But wait, John beats up his mother regularly. Therefore, beating up your mother is morally alright.”
See the problem?

Quote from
http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Friendship, love care and altruism between species

Lovely little story....

Dog and a cat:
http://shine.yahoo.com/pets/dog-rescues-kitten-then-adopts-her-224300927.html

Vegan reply to "'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed"

“The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking”
Ethics is the only reason why we are not being cannibals as well. If you are going to use your justification you have to disregard that there is an objective moral and you have to disregard what we intuitively know, that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon human animals as well as non-human animals.

To state it again:
“We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
“ Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.UaB68Jxc18E

Reply to Michael, who wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'creator of the world' has designed it in a way that suffering is caused in order for beings to feed. Spiders eat flies, birds eat worms, cats eat birds and fish, wild cats eats other big animals etc etc etc and is a way of life.
The only thing throwing the human eating of animals into doubt is the evolving of our mental thinking

Darwin and evolution does not justify humans hurting and killing animals for food

That there is evolution of species does in no way justify us inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. You have already recognized that animals have a moral value, since you are opposed to the abuse of animals. However, killing and hurting animals for "taste" is surely a transgression of their right to live as free and independent individuals, which they have being sentient beings with a moral value.

Humans having the body of an herbivore [see footnote 1], animal products are being bad for us [2], and we have no nutritional need at all for animal products [3]. Just like the gorillas, cows and horses and many other animals we are herbivores. Just like cows, we can eat meat, however it is not good for our body, and not good for us spiritually [4].
We can’t look at other species, and justify our behavior, just because there are predators that hurt and kill other beings. There are many behaviors that some predators do that we would never justify, and if we use this methodology almost any human behavior can be justified. Put a small bunny in the same room as a small child. She will not try to hurt and kill the bunny. Hurting and killing other sentient beings is something that is contradictory to our inner nature, our loving, compassionate and nonviolent nature; and is something that is only learnt by the indoctrination of our culture, which has reduced animals to being commodities. Doing this as a regular habit, we disconnect ourselves to the animals, and we lose some of our capacity to understand that it is wrong to take the life of another being - who is consciousness just like us. Just because they have been given another body than us, doesn't mean that there is any essential difference. This is also discussed in the wonderful book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle [4]. If you visited a slaughterhouse you would see that the animals don’t want to die and that they suffer tremendously when someone is taking their precious life. See more movies about animals, their lives and their treatment at www.vegankit.com
Footnotes:
1.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html; 2. http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ;3. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ ; http://www.forksoverknives.com/
4. www.worldpeacediet.org  ; good lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkQrJZYZN4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

----
Quotes Darwin:
"There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."

"The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."

Different color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or species is irrelevant for equality, peace and rights

Equality, peace and rights are so important.  Different color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria, are all irrelevant for us granting everyone equality, peace, nonviolence and rights. Not only among humans, but among all species. In fact the unequality, violence and suffering that we inflict upon other species, and the justification of this unequality and violence based on this artificial and irrelevant criteria, is the root of the violence, suffering, and unequality in our culture. As we sow, we will reap.
"Fourth, as I argued in my chapter in The Great Ape Project and as I have said repeatedly since then, the right to full membership in the moral community and the right not to be treated as property is dependent on only one characteristic—sentience. If a nonhuman is sentient, then we have a moral obligation not to treat that being as a resource or commodity. The fact that a dog may not have the same sort of reflective self-awareness that a chimpanzee has does not mean that the dog and the chimpanzee are not equal for the purpose of not having their fundamental interests in life and in not suffering disregarded if it benefits someone else to do so.

Animals are killed everyday at zoos (and many, many other places) for a variety of reasons. The shooting of poor Johnny was surely tragic, but equally so are those deaths of nonhumans who are not “similar” to us in the way that Johnny was, beyond being creatures who had subjective awareness and who valued their lives in their own ways.
Go vegan, never patronize zoos, and resist the creation of new hierarchies based on anthropocentric values.
Humans are not the measure of things; we are only one measure among many.
"
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/equality-and-similarity-to-humans/#.UY4Qz404VD8
I also recommend this wonderful lecture by Will Tuttle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo