Attack my argument: morality of eating meat

So this is my argument as to why raising and eating and animals is not morally wrong.



1. Rights are not dependent of biological factor (If it were so and that rights were dependent on the most simple biological factor -- alive, and sentient --then every living entity from bacteria to plants to humans will be protected by the laws that apply to humans such as the Constitution, if such entities were in America)
2. Rights are simply a mutual and joint responsibility. (This simply means that if one believes in a particular right then such a person who holds the right is held responsible for respecting that particular right of others who has the capability of respecting your rights. So for example if a human has the right to free religion, and then by mutual responsibility such a right holder must respect another human being’s right to free religion, and must not breach that right against another by religious discrimination, for example. A human has the right to free speech, and by mutual responsibility such a right holder must respect both another's right to free speech, and must not misuse the right of free speech against another, such as slander. A human has the right to keep and bear arms, therefore by mutual responsibility such a right holder must not infringe on another's right to bear arms, and violation, such as using arms in unjustified force against another human being. A human has the right of equality under the equal treatment of sexes, and race, and so under mutual responsibility such a holder of right must not breach on such right of others and take discriminatory actions based on sexual or racial differences.)
3. An infringement of joint mutual responsibility leads to accountability whether it is criminal liability or civil liability.
4. Nonhumans do not have rights because nonhumans do not have the mental capacity to identify and respect mutual responsibility. (If nonhumans did have rights, then dogs can be put in jail for vandalizing public property after it excretes its waste on any public space. If nonhumans did have rights, then a bear or a lion can get life sentence if it kills –murder, since nonhumans have rights in the scenario mentioned-- a human or a deer.)
5. Then, humans do not have any moral duties (specifically moral duties that stem from ethics between humans; interhuman ethics) towards nonhumans.
6. If raising up and killing nonhumans for food is morally wrong, then it implies that nonhumans do have rights, and humans have interhuman moral duties towards nonhumans.
7. From premise 2 and premise 4, nonhumans don’t have the rights and humans does not have any inter-human moral duties (moral duties that apply to humans) towards nonhumans.
8. Then, it can be said that nonhumans does not have a claim to be spared of being killed for consumption, despite the fact that pointless killing must be spared because it is wasteful, which is an evil of selfishness in that others (humans and nonhumans) are deficient of such resources elsewhere, and could have utilized such resources for survival.
9. Conclusively, humans do not have moral obligation towards nonhumans, and since humans have no interhuman moral duties towards nonhumans, then killing nonhumans for consumption does not violate any rights or ethics, and therefore it is not morally wrong; furthermore, raising and killing nonhumans for consumption is not morally wrong.

(It must be pointed out that while raising animals is permissible under this argument, it is not all right to cause suffering or torture in the process of raising the animal, because humans, by moral standards, have an inherent duty to be not cruel -- torture is inherently evil. Killing animals must also be regulated to minimize suffering as much as possible.)

by L_n_o // K_l_m_a_n_ // RVC