So, if sentience is much less special and much more incoherent phenomenon than the Enlightenment thinkers who made it the crown of the human superiority would have thought, and consequently the whole concept is more akin to teleological physics of Aristotle than an apt name for what really happens ... then attributing moral value to sentience alone seems less compelling take than it initially would seem.
Personally, I find Benjamin Franklin's reasoning to cease vegetarianism quite logical. Animals are allowed to eat animals.
We're not animals. We can't have it both ways in the ideological spectrum of how we both perceive and interact with the world. Whatever the fuck Ben Franklin said is largely meaningless when you take a few minutes to compare it against the world and reality he inhabited to the one we live in today.
I wonder how frequently that occurs. Or am I just odd?