[fkdo]

> "It's immoral to eat them because they can have thoughts and an internal experience, just like us," and "But they taste good" is not a counterargument.

There is an implied "We are on top of the food chain" along with "they taste good".

There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator. Ultimately market forces should align the price to equal the cost of framing / hunting. Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems.

I don't actually hold those worldviews, but they are implied with the sentence "but they taste good"

[wtmt]

> Additionally we have huge ethical problems in how humans treat each other we should work on before even worrying about an invertebrate's problems.

The deep patterns of thinking underlying the mistreatment of humans and the mistreatment of other animals are the same to a large extent. It just needs contemplation to get to that.

[DFHippie]

> There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator.

It's more like it's definitional of an apex predator that it eats what it pleases. It isn't a question of legitimacy.

[lprubin]

> There is some legitimacy to the idea that we should eat whatever we please because we are the apex predator.

Many men are strong enough to forcibly overpower many women and therefore there is some legitimacy to the idea that they should rape whoever they please.

Might does not make right.

[Retra]

Shared morality makes right, but might makes right wherever a conflict of moralities cannot be resolved by shared ideals.