But weren't you arguing earlier that animals have the right to live and pursue their own interests, without the threat of death by humans. The cruelty part was not considered then, just that they have the right to their own lives.
So don't plants have the right to die a natural death? They are living things. Does the fact that they do not feel pain give us the right to kill them?
That is very far from being what I have argued. I stated since my first post that my position is a consequentialist one, and that I view morality as only making true sense when it is based on the maximisation of well-being and happiness as opposed to pain and suffering. Cruelty is indeed the central part that I consider, hence my emphasis on factory farming. The right to life is, in my view, actually secondary to the way animals live their lives. That is why I argued earlier in the thread that swiftly shooting down a wild animal to eat its flesh is not something I have that much of a problem with. It is the prolongued suffering animals in factory farms are subjected to that I strongly oppose.
I constantly clash with fellow vegetarians on this, especially with vegans. Many of them disagree with my views, as they claim animals have an intrinsic value. I don't think anything
has an instrinsic value. Whatever has value must have value for a reason.
It was MichaelKrep who mentioned rights, and I replied to him that, to me, rights cannot be simply summarily conferred. Whatever has a right must have that right for a reason. Whatever has a right to well-being and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore a right to avoid pain and suffering, must be able to experience happiness and pain to begin with.