To me, morality is based upon a goal and the causal means by which we may have relation to that goal. For many, the goal is approximately similar, i.e., for humanity to prosper. I also think that morality becomes productive when consensus is achieved, even if it's approximate consensus.
I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respect to ecological reasons. If the argument is about sustainability, then I think a lot of people can get into that discussion. But if the argument stems from the idea that we should simply feel bad for killing smart cows and pigs, then I don't understand.
I would also say that under my definition of morality, goals are more important than means. Therefore, just as I would think it bad to let a human starve or be eaten in a forest, by extension, if we were to regard "smart animal" prosperity as the goal, then we would also think it morally negligent to simply throw up our hands and say "the wild took its course with that one!".
So what is your moral premise?
(killing smart animals like cows or pigs) => (mediating factors) => (? moral outcome you're attempting to build consensus on ?)
How about these premises: 1. Happiness/pleasure ought to be increased. 2. Suffering ought to be decreased. 3. The type of being experiencing these is immaterial. Why stop at humans?
That is nice until you observe what actually happens in the raw nature itself - I had a "joy" observing two crows killing a sparrow with the utmost cruelty, prolonging its suffering as much as they could, and then leaving it there without "eating" it.
We simply have to transcend nature if we want to feel good about ourselves. Maybe once we master technology, we can reprogram the mess of this Universe (at some point we will be dealing with pure computer science instead of physics, which will be just a consequence of some mathematical structures and algorithms running on top of them). I never understood why so many humans worship nature - nature is broken, it's like a fairly balanced pathological system, showing some wonders (Moon-Earth distance allowing total eclipses) as well as atrocities (basically all what is nasty about life itself).
I don't understand why eating smart animals like cows or pigs has a substantive relationship to human prosperity, except with respect to ecological reasons. If the argument is about sustainability, then I think a lot of people can get into that discussion. But if the argument stems from the idea that we should simply feel bad for killing smart cows and pigs, then I don't understand.
I would also say that under my definition of morality, goals are more important than means. Therefore, just as I would think it bad to let a human starve or be eaten in a forest, by extension, if we were to regard "smart animal" prosperity as the goal, then we would also think it morally negligent to simply throw up our hands and say "the wild took its course with that one!".
So what is your moral premise?
(killing smart animals like cows or pigs) => (mediating factors) => (? moral outcome you're attempting to build consensus on ?)