Occasionally the argument is put forward that it is one’s right to eat meat. This line of thinking is particularly simple to overturn. If you claim that it is your ultimate right to choose what to eat, I would say that is correct up to a point; when however, your right to eat animal products grossly infringes upon the right of another conscious being from grievous bodily harm and ultimately the untimely ending of a life, I say we have a problem.
Given how animal products are not particularly good for your health (saturated fat, cholesterol, heart disease and numerous cancers) and are not a vital component of human diet, the argument for consuming animal products becomes even weaker. Then, attempting to justify the entire moral consequences of our current policy and relationship towards other living things is just a ridiculous assertinon.
Even if you maintain that a non-human life is in some way less valuable than one of our own, you still cannot argue that your want for luxury, convenience and tasteis worth more moral significance than the very livelihood of a fellow animal. This is a ludicrous position. The “right” to eat meat and use animal products wholly fails to justify the massive infringement of a conscious, feeling, albe-to-suffer living creature.
In addition, the cost of the damage to the environment equates to a whole lot more individual suffering of animals. By ruining huge areas of land through mining, deforestation, water pollution and global warming (~25% of greenhouse gases, studies vary from 18% to 51%) no reasonable individual can argue that we should continue our meat and animal consumption when it is having such a vast, detrimental impact to ourselves, the other animals we share the world with and whole ecosystems are being ruined – as opposed to the tiny net “benefit” it gains. The balance sheet is so one-sided, the decision is now so clear, the longer we wait to change our animal policy we will pay an increasingly heavy price, and feel very foolish if we cripple our planet beyond repair.