How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?
> the default
There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering.
And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?
The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. Humans must take a positive action to eat something.
Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imperfect duties, which are things that are merely virtuous to do - like using your time & resources to help the less-fortunate, for example.
That's default for rocks and such, but not living things, whose existence requires by default the death of other living things
I don't personally subscribe to this.
If you're going to talk about morality and agency, it is not a positive choice to eat anything. It's acting out of necessity to survive. Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral[1]. This is why we force feed people on hunger strikes and why suicide is illegal. Modern/western written law is based on natural law.
"Breatharianism" is pure stupidity/insanity and anyone who undertakes such practice can (and will) literally go die.
We aren't talking about what the law dictates, we're talking about how some moral system might inform our actions. Two very different things, although of course the relationship between them is fascinating in its own right.
Downvote me all you like Andrew, but I'm going to call you out for espousing ideas that can literally kill people.
I'll leave you with this quote of yours to consider:
> Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral.
If something is immoral, there must have been a moral choice made to engage in the immoral activity. "Moral choice" here is a technical term which means the choice itself has moral weight, not that the choice is moral.
Again, not sure I completely agree with the line of reasoning, but I at least see the point.
It's like someone saying everyone has the ability to accept God or Jesus. No, we don't. And it's a touchy subject, because zealots tend to next infer that someone isn't fully human if they don't share fundamental beliefs or axioms.
If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?
As for the default, I think a simple way to put it is, "you don't have to eat meat."