I do not have a horse in the race, but is there any *ethical* reason to think that consuming meat of animal Z is better than consuming that of animal Y (if both species are not endangered)? We all know that there might be religious or cultural reasons, 1/6 #vegetarianism #ethics

but what about ethical reasons? On the one hand, one might think that, e.g., eating rabbits is not ethically worse than eating cows. On the other, one might say that people who would not eat rabbits because, e.g., they are cute, are closer to understanding 2/6

that all animals are "cute" and that no one of them deserved being killed. Conversely, eating animals one was not used to eat since childhood, say, snakes if you are a European, might mean going over one's prejudices, which might be culturally good, but ethically 3/6

backfire, since some inherited inhibitions are indeed ethically good (say, one does not physically harm one's family members, or weaker people…). 4/6

Last point: I can see why eating animals who are less able to experience pain can be ethically better (e.g., eating ants over eating mammals). Thoughts? Perhaps @bathelina? P.S.: Cross-cultural perspective: Animals are not a uniform class if you are a Sanskrit thinker. 5/6

And in many Buddhist schools you'll rather eat the biggest animal (typically a yak), so that many can eat it, rather than having to eat many animals for each human being. 6/6