>Many animals are probably sentient, but personally I see no moral imperative to not eat them
In that case, what moral imperative is there for me not to eat you?
I don't want a lion to eat me. But I don't have a moral complaint against the lion for wanting to, trying to, or even succeeding. I'd be pissed, of course, but my objection is purely that I don't want to be eaten at all, period. There's not a moral dimension to it at all.
I also don't want YOU to eat me. But unlike the lion, I DO have a moral objection against you, on top of the simple not-wanting-to-be-eaten-at-all thing.
In conjunction with that, I find that I also have a moral objection against MYSELF, when it comes to the thought of ME eating YOU. So, although I don't know for sure yet what the basis of that moral objection is, I have learned that there does exist one. And, I can conjecture that whatever the foundation of that objection is, that's the same basis for my moral objection against you eating me.
But, whatever that basis is, it doesn't seem to apply to a lion who wants to eat me, because I don't morally object against the lion. So, although that doesn't guarantee anything one way out the other just yet, perhaps it's justified that I don't feel any moral discomfort with me eating the lion[0], while absolutely having immense moral discomfort with you doing so, or even really wanting to. The situation, morally, with the lion seems to be a different thing, morally, than you eating me or vice-versa.
([0] This is speaking in the moral abstract, anyway—as it happens, there's not really enough lions left in the world to waste eating them, but that's separate from the question of whether it's moral to do so in general, if situational stuff like species extinction and other ($n)th-order effects weren't a factor).
This doesn’t apply to other animals.
Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people”
You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Other hominids? Neanderthals?
Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.
For instance, don‘t inflict unnecessary harm on living animals if it can be reasonably avoided.
At least to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable rule that I would be willing to follow and could prevent a lot of suffering in the world.
Medically, there is the risk of Prion disease. This is a major threat to yourself, and in a few cases it is contagious. So you would have the medical imperative to avoid it to keep the people around you safe.
We don't want our future AI overlords to kill us because we're 1000x dumber than them and also not the same species. I think it's only fair for us to extend the same morals to animals.
That depends on whether our future AI overlords need to eat us or not. The issue, at least for eating animals or humans is a need for sustenance.
As someone enjoying a vegan lifestyle, I am living proof that humans do not need to eat other animals. Also if we would stop the cruel practice of factory farming, it’s common knowledge that we would have more calories available for us humans. In terms of sustenance, we are going out of our way to hurt humans and other animals to uphold the entrenched consumption patterns of a select few.
I think for AI overlords the question will be quite similar… how should we use the resources which we have available? Who is worthy of consideration and who is not? At the moment, we are truly not making a great case for keeping us around because anything we can do, they can do better. So why keep us around if not for some ethical insight?