> What about if someone were starving and they needed to eat a human to survive?
Yeah, what about it? I don't understand the relevance of the thought experiment.
> If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death
Why can't I consider them food when there is no other option? Why can't I try to preserve animal life as much as I can, unless my very own suffering and death are at stake?
How is it so controversial to simply say that we should avoid suffering so long as we are not sacrificing our own life? If I'm well off and healthy and have everything I need to survive, then the suffering caused by my killing an animal seems super unnecessary and pointless, no? But that same act (killing and consuming the animal) when I need to do it to survive is _not_ unnecessary or pointless, thus rendering it not immoral. That's all.
Yeah, what about it? I don't understand the relevance of the thought experiment.
> If you don't want to consider animals as food, then don't consider them food, even if it means starving to death
Why can't I consider them food when there is no other option? Why can't I try to preserve animal life as much as I can, unless my very own suffering and death are at stake?
How is it so controversial to simply say that we should avoid suffering so long as we are not sacrificing our own life? If I'm well off and healthy and have everything I need to survive, then the suffering caused by my killing an animal seems super unnecessary and pointless, no? But that same act (killing and consuming the animal) when I need to do it to survive is _not_ unnecessary or pointless, thus rendering it not immoral. That's all.