Rucksack: There is no self evidential ethical basis not to eat animals. If the argument is that taking life to sustain one's self is wrong, then one must point to the actual reason why. This goes for the concept of animal rights as well.
Sargon: :-)
Well, could you please show me a self evidential ethical basis not to:
Murder (unlawfull killing)
The raping of women
Stealing
Enslaving people
Thank you!
There is not self-evidential ethical basis as to why murder, rape, and enslavement are wrong. In fact, there are societies in which these things are practiced regularly.
Society creates normative standards that then inform our ethical view. It's naive to think that there is anything approaching right or wrong. What we can do is determine, as a society, what we value. Western society, for the most part, values personal protections; therefore, we've put a prohibition on murder, enslavement, and rape. We haven't always been this way either, and the transatlantic slave trade is only a generation or so removed from recent memory.
PETA is trying to apply human standards to animals. I can't think of anything more glaringly anthropocentric. A lion would not only kill me, but most likely enjoy torturing me a bit before finally ending my short time on this earth. Your house cat does the same thing to a mouse. Somehow assuming that the lion, or house cat, shares cultural human values, and thus should be protected from harm, is ludicrous.
And no, I don't feel any cogitative dissonance towards PETA. They're simply idiots.
I do agree that animals should be killed efficiently and with a minimum of pain. It's not because the animal expects it, or it's the "right thing to do, but because it makes me feel a bit better due to my cultural sensitives.