[quote]I think you mean "animals haven't invented morality yet; humans have".[/quote]Animals haven't invented it because they can't comprehend it. They cannot grasp that their actions may be more, or less, desirable as far as minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure. [quote]If morality is something which we have 'discovered' then please tell me the moral status of an exploding star or a tree photosynthesising.[/quote]Stars are not conscious. We "discovered" morality the moment we discovered that there is a spectrum of conscious experience where the greatest pleasures sit at one end and the worst forms of suffering sit at the other. [quote]Is it 'immoral' for one tree to force another tree to die by depriving it of light? Don't be daft.There's a reason why morality is only spoken of in terms of human interactions.[/quote]No, it's spoken of in terms of [i]conscious[/i] interactions. Your dichotomy is a false one. [quote]Also, I am not claiming that because animals eat other animals we should too, I am telling you how life works.[/quote]I know how "life works", I am saying that it isn't necessarily how it [i]should[/i] work. If you were consistent with this argument, you would also oppose any form of structured civilisation because it defies your apeish idea of how "life works". Clearly, we are able to change, and improve, our lives and the lives of others. We have a hardwired imperative to do so -- thus being a part of how life works, interestingly. [quote]I like how you completely ignored my point about the apple when it explains the situation perfectly.[/quote]I ignored it because it was a poor argument. Apples, like stars and trees, aren't conscious. Fish are. The difference between eating an apple and a fish is crystal clear. It has nothing to do with being a "living organism", but a conscious one. [quote]Sure a fish squirms about and suffers, but if that is the only reason you don't want to harm it then why not tranquilise it before killing it? No pain, no squirming; now it is exactly the same as the apple.[/quote]Why end its life when there's a perfectly good apple available? (This is analogous to there being countless vegan alternatives for every animal food.) And, of course, you are simply kidding yourself if you think the animals killed for food live painless lives and die painless deaths, even from laxly labelled 'organic' and 'free range' sources. I dislike the term speciesist, as it is awkward and crude. Even though you were being facetious, if speciesism extended toward apples and stars I wouldn't mind wearing the label. It wouldn't stop my arguments from being logically ironclad, and yours less so.