Carracci - The Butchers Shop - 1583
The reason humans have rights is simply because we assert them.
Animals are unable to reason to the point of identifying rights. You show me a single species besides humans that can identify and communicate the plight of their species and reason with me why morally its wrong to eat them and ill quit eating that species.
Otherwise your speculation about animal rights has no merits.
I'll go so far as to stop eating any animal that can pass the 'mark test' - that is, put a smear of paint on it's face and leave it in a room with a mirror. If it recognizes itself, it will wipe the mark off of its face - but most animals haven't a clue what is in the mirror - they have no sense of self.
Kinda of weird to expect humans to value a life that has no value of such itself.
I can understand the concept when it comes to animals that display behaviors that can be interpreted as self-awareness. I think most great apes actually have a sense of self, as well as dolphins. There is no way in hell, however, that oysters or mussels have that quality but for some reason the vegan philosophy seems to abhor eating them too - that is where the rationale breaks down for me.
Most animals display a strong instinct to survive. Your assertion that animals have no perception of their own value is wrong.
Ok, well I'll ask the same of you as any theist - provide some evidence.
Prior to about age 1 1/2, human babies don't have self-awareness in the sense of being able to recognize themselves in a mirror, either. Is it okay to eat babies because they lack that aspect of self-awareness? I think not! But they still have the capacity to fear physical threats and experience pain when physical harm is inflicted on them; those are the morally relevant criteria here, the major reasons why we don't think it's okay to kill and eat a baby. As for oysters and mussels, we really have no idea at this point what they feel. If in fact we were able to determine that they had no subjectively unpleasant experiences, there couldn't be an ethical objection to eating them. But so far we don't know that to be true.
By the way, I don't understand why both vegans and non-vegans alike seem to assume that eating animals necessarily entails killing them. Although I wouldn't do it because I think meat is gross, there's no ethical basis that I can think of to be opposed to scavenging. As long as the animal hasn't been deliberately killed by humans, no ethical principle is violated by eating it.
Already responded to that line - sorry, you lose.
Dolphins are one of the most evil creatures around so its possible they are self aware. I mean they kill for no apparent reason all the time.
Great apes not only are likely self aware but they are cousins to our species and should be off the plate.
I can see restricting some animals that have the potential for self awareness.. but most of those are off the diet list of civilized cultures already.
I like this idea alot.
First, the mirror test isn't necessarily a sufficient test for sentience. It relies on vision, which isn't always the dominant sense for an animal. We test things based on our perception of reality, which isn't objective.
But even if we do agree to your arbitrary means for determining an arbitrary criteria for not being eaten, then you have to include pigs in that category, because they have been shown to pass the mirror test.