Animals' rights

Do animals have a right not to be eaten?

First I'd like to point out that there seems to be a running assumption that humans already have a right not to be eaten; the assumption is inferable due to the fact that "animals" is the subject in question, not humans. In today's world, there is not a matter of public controversy concerning whether it's fine to eat humans-- it is simply wrong. This is a taboo which cannot really be justified any further in our society. It may be worth mentioning that many primitive societies did practice cannibalism, so that it wasn't taboo in all historical circumstances, so it cannot be defined as an absolute law, not even by Kant's categorical imperative strategy.

Let us rephrase the question, then: assuming humans possess the right not to be eaten, do animals have the same right?

We need to further refine the question, however. For we could imagine two situations in which this question is applicable: one, in which an animal is treated humanely throughout its life, then dies naturally, and consequently we have to ask the question: do we have the right to eat it? The same question could be applied to a human who lived a long and natural life. Do we have the right to eat him after he dies?

The other situation involves the necessary conditions that have to be established for a meat-consuming society, and to make things as clear as possible we should subtract the eating component from this side of the question. The conditions in question are the establishment of inhumane practices that treat animals' lives as parts of an assembly line. Are the suffering an animal experiences over the course of its life in this assembly line wrong? Once again, the same question could be asked concerning a human: if we forced a human to experience all the suffering an animal did in the assembly line we created, would it be wrong?

Four questions now. Let us rehash:
1) Is it wrong to eat a dead human, regardless of what kind of life he lived?
2) Is it wrong to eat a dead animal, regardless of what kind of life it lived?
3) Is it wrong to treat a human as an item on an assembly line?
4) Is it wrong to treat an animal as an item on an assembly line?

Now let us imagine a number of different people came to answer these questions. The first is a cannibal who believes in the sacredness of life. The second is an animal rights activist. The third is an average American who just enjoys his hamburger.

The cannibal would say:
1&2) It's fine to eat a dead human or a dead animal.
3&4) It's not okay to treat any living thing as part of an assembly line.

Animal Rights Activist:
1&2) It's not okay to eat dead animals or dead humans.
3&4) It's not okay to treat animals or humans as parts of assembly lines.

Average American:
1&2) It's okay to eat dead animals, NOT dead humans.
3&4) It's okay to treat animals as part of an assembly line; NOT so for humans.

The average American is the only one who places special status on the species human. Can this special status for humans be justified?

It has been proposed that humans are the only beings on Earth capable of deep reflection upon their past experiences. Humans have the most complex understanding of the self, which makes their suffering far greater than any animal's could ever be.

But imagine that an alien race descended upon Earth and enslaved the race of man, treating them like cattle. This alien race had such a level of intelligence that it dwarfed man's cognitive abilities. To this race of aliens, humans were nothing special; though we could reflect, we could not perform what they might call "reflection squared"-- we'll just make up this term, which will serve as a cognitive ability the aliens use to justify their treatment of humans.

Does this alien race perform an act that is morally wrong? By our "reflection" rule, yes! By the aliens' "reflection squared" rule, no!

The line that differentiates humans and animals can be drawn however one pleases. We could say chimps and men both possess a sufficient level of consciousness that neither should be subject to prolonged suffering... but we draw the line at human consciousness.

What about just eating humans and animals, then? I haven't heard any ethical arguments against those, except that it might be healthier to stick to vegetables.