Why Rights?

In response to Andy - full post here

I think the reason for trying to decide on the rights and value of non-human animals is precisely to decide when and to what extent we are allowed to harm the animal.

If a non-human animal has the same value and rights as a human then it would unacceptable to do to an animal what we would not do to a human. If it is only okay to kill humans in self-defense situations (regardless of how harmless the killing is), and if non-human animals have the same rights as humans, then it would only be okay to kill non-human animals in self-defense situations.

The problem with not recognizing their rights and trying to operate on a "respect as much as you (anyone) can" principle is that many people will decide that they don't have any respect for animals. So, unless there are some reasons to which we can point and say, animals have such-an-such rights, the value of animals is subjective. The conclusion can also become sort of slippery slope, unless we fall victim to speciesism.

Vegetarianism for Pets and Children?

Question: Does one have the moral obligation to provide a vegetarian diet to those of whom one is taking care?

The question is asking this: if you are taking care of a living animal (including humans), do you have an obligation to provide that animal with a vegetarian diet?

I think the answer to this question depends on a number of factors. Firstly, one must decide if abstinence from meat is even necessary in the diet of those of whom one is taking care. Parrots, for example, are mostly herbivorous, but some parrots do require animal protein, but they can get that protein from slugs and other grubs that have very little moral value. In the case of these parrots, a vegetarian diet may not be necessary at all.

Secondly, the animal should be able to get all their essential nutrients from the vegetarian diet, and the person providing the food should have all the necessary resources to provide the vegetarian food.

So, since cats are carnivorous, people have no obligation to feed their cats vegetarian diets. In fact, people may have the obligation to provide meat for their cats. Dogs, being omnivores with a carnivorous bias, could probably safely consume a mostly but not entirely meat-free diet. A human who is unable to make a choice in their diet, but could survive on a vegetarian diet, should be fed a vegetarian diet. Note again that this depends highly on each individual animal's needs.

I think the most interesting case is that of a child. Does one have an obligation to provide a child with a vegetarian diet. In this particular case, I would say no. Many vegetarians become ill after consuming meat when they have not done so for a long time. Since a child is unable to make the choices to accommodate that health risk, I think it is best to provide a child with a mostly vegetarian diet with occasional exposure to animal bacteria. Vegetarian should always be available as a choice for a child.

Moral Obligation (Response to Tyler)

In response to Tyler - full post here

I think it would be altogether wonderful if the desire to eat meat naturally dissipated after meeting those conditions that you specified. Unfortunately that is not something that is very likely to happen. So, in response, we need to determine if, regardless of people's desire, it is wrong to eat meat, and therefore obligatory to follow a vegetarian diet. The question is thus: what if the desire doesn't dissipate?

Here is an argument that can result from the conclusion that "people only have a moral obligation to form a congruenc[e] between their beliefs and actions":

Hitler believed that it was okay and even good to kill millions of Jewish people, and he did kill millions of Jewish people. Therefore, he fulfilled his moral obligations.

Basically, the conclusion that one must reach from this argument is that actions have no moral value, and that any action can be justified in reference to belief. This would probably lead to a high crime rate with no way to justly defend people's rights.

Instead, I think we need to realize that, while one does not have an obligation to believe in a moral proposition, people are obligated to act in a moral way. People can believe that vegetarianism is wrong and that it's okay to kill millions of people, but if eating animals and killing millions of people is wrong, then people have the moral obligation to be vegetarian and to refrain from killing millions of people.