The issue is rather that you seem so uncomfortable with entertaining the notion that humans are not special or unique in moral value that you'd rather stoop to petty insults.

Edit: Sure, go ahead and block me rather than have to have a conversation that brings you face to face with the idea that maybe just maybe humans are not that special among animals and maybe just maybe that means you cannot just go around harming other animals. You'd rather insult me and block me and uncharitably assume I think we should harm humans than raise the status of other animals and think that maybe just maybe you should change your own habits. Just shows to go ya how deeply entrenched your ideology is.

That's what we call a false dichotomy.

Well, does your monologue boil down to anything other than: "I think humans are special for really vague and spurious reasons, so I think their dead bodies are also strangely and inexplicably special." ?

I don't think you've addressed the issue at all.

Plant "desires", lifeform hierarchies, and murder all are irrelevant to the question at hand of cannibalism.

Okay, you've clearly run out of arguments to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Let me know if you think of something of value to add.

Are you going to elaborate?

Yes, but not because of harm done to that person in particular. It's multi-faceted, don't you agree?

Do you think that cannibalism harms that man? Or do you agree that this is another multi-faceted issue where other factors need to be taken into account?

It's a multi-faceted issue. The real dishonesty would be in ignoring that.

>Is it a moral harm to eat a man that died of natural causes?

Not to that man.

That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it's okay to raise and then eat a cow that dies from natural causes.

A wild cow? Probably also not, if you consider that a wild carcass is part of the ecosystem. But as for what you're really tacitly asking: no, you haven't done a moral harm to the cow per se by eating it then.

Probably not, because the use of resources needed to raise such animals is detrimental to the environment.

So I guessed right.

Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.

I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.

Also, you're using a priori wrong.

You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.

Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.

You haven't really supported that argument either, other than simply stating your preferred hierarchy.

Yes, so, coming back to your original comment, talking about how we ought to treat them very much IS a moral issue.

Sure, in marginal cases. But arguments from marginal cases don't make good day to day ethics.

Animals don't belong in any of those categories for ethical consideration?

Which is exactly why people are commenting that this isn't philosophy/ethics. Easier to dismiss outright than face something they don't want to acknowledge.