This seems problematic because, if we use what we have done in the past as justification, appealing to what we might wrongly or rightly call ‘natural’ , then could, or perhaps even should, we not encourage sexism, persecution based on ethnicity, homophobia, survival of only the strong and the extermination of the weak, and a whole host of other acts that we now recognise as wrongs but at one stage or another were common place truths. As human animals we are sufficiently supplied with the capacities to carry out acts such as these. What stops us is that we recognise that we can choose. As soon as there is a choice available, and we are aware of it, there is one choice that will be the right one (or in some cases perhaps just the more right or lesser of two evils). The fact other animals eat other animals is irrelevant. Some animals will eat their young (in fact infanticide has been a standard part of several human societies) or devour their partners after mating. Few would be so hasty to use this as a basis for human action. If, as is commonly thought, we have a higher self awareness which distinguishes us from other animals, why and how could it possibly ever make sense to look to them for a basis for morality?

Here I would recommend independent research to be done by the reader as there are many sources of different statistical information to be digested, and these can often slightly differ due to location or time of publishing. However I shall give a brief outline of some examples how the statement above is unfortunately always misinformed. And why this similarly is never an ethical justification for eating meat.

Nonhuman animals are caused deep distress (much like we are) by being removed from their young and have a strong instinctual fear of pain and death. The meat industry causes suffering in all these ways. Slaughter houses can be a place of grotesque abuse, and acts of cruelty (from desensitised humans) are well documented by animal rights groups. However, even when legislation is followed animals experience fear and distress, and death can never be guaranteed to be swift. During their short lives chickens can expect to have their beaks cut usually without anaesthetic. Yet even with this, due to overcrowding and frustration, many end up fighting or killing each other. Day-old male chicks, as very few are necessary in the production of eggs and as they are leaner than hens are not considered for their flesh, are gassed or shredded.

Herd animals may look perfectly happy in fields but the truth is, due to the industry, cruelty still happens. Like chickens, males have little chance of a full life with many being confined to small cages to prevent movement and killed before reaching adulthood to sell as veal (although veal crates are currently illegal in Britain there is no law that stops farmers selling their calves to the continent where this abuse continues). Dairy cows are almost always lactating and pregnant at the same time causing malnutrition as the cow cannot eat enough between milking sessions to sustain itself. Due to selective breeding the udders of today's dairy cows can produce between 10 and 20 times the amount of milk they would have originally. This leads to discomfort, irritation and infections. Dairy cows are usually killed by the time they are five (their average life expectancy being 20-30) as their productivity declines due to exhaustion and malnutrition etc. Pigs are kept usually indoors and are prevented much space in which to move. This causes many to develop pressure sores. They are killed once fully grown. I do not wish to merely re-iterate swaves of statistical data as to be comprehensive would take along time. The fact is all industry reared animals have their lives ended early (for obvious economic reasons), and when being transported and killed fear and pain are common place.

Another point here is that of how can an animal ever really have a good life in confinement? Given the instinctual, sensory filled lives of animals (which are in many ways built around activities within a free life), how can their life be deemed ‘good' when this freedom is taken away? Dairy cows can't raise their children, chickens can't even fulfil the basic instinct of spreading their wings, and pigs (creatures proved to be intellectually superior to dogs) have any stimulating activity kept from them. Of course these things seem like basic complaints when compared to the harsh reality of a slaughter house – but doesn't that say that giving them ‘good lives' doesn't justify the slaughterhouse?

A Vegan diet is naturally low in fat and cholesterol, and naturally high in vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and omega oils, it has become highly recommended as part of a balanced healthy lifestyle. It is a myth that we need flesh in our diet to be healthy. Omega oils are the things that people seem to think only come from fish, as the government has been pushing recently, but these appear naturally in forms out-with fish. If this is of major concern the vegetarian society try to explain here: http://www.vegsoc.org/info/omega3.html . After all certain fish are only high in omega oils because they need to be to survive themselves – not just so we can eat them and gain it! There is nothing we require to live as human beings which comes solely from animal sources. What does that tell you?

Alternatives to flesh foods have increased greatly in quality and variety over recent years. Vegans and vegetarians now need not remove food items from their shopping list, reducing the variety of taste in their diet, they need only replace with alternatives. (and there's plenty of really tasty ones out there!)

As for using the argument that ‘everyone does it' as a justification for the deliberate abuse of nonhumans (or in fact for anything!) is ridiculous. Throughout our history human morality has grown and developed. This development has been made by people thinking for themselves and not by going along with the status quo. For example in racism, sexism, workers rights etc. Was it ok for soldiers in Iraq to abuse prisoners just because everyone else at the prison was? Similarly, were the Nazi's right to murder Jewish citizens just because there entire society condoned it? I would think the answer would have to be no.

This simply (and thankfully!) is not the case. In fact this is one of the great things about a Vegan or Vegetarian lifestyle. The more that is bought of a product – the more of that is produced, and vice versa, the less that's bought – the less will be produced. As our economy works around this supply and demand basis, if you don ' t put money into a system you prevent it from growing, thereby in this instance saving lives. This applies not only to flesh but to any animal derived product. Moreover by supporting alternatives you help finance growth in this animal-free industry, creating a greater variety of produce. The common misconception here is to not spot that companies work on a supply and demand basis.

A deep fear of death and pain is inbuilt in all creatures. It keeps us alive. It is evolutionarily advantageous to avoid pain and death, and as of such is a universal rule. The idea animals feel this less is simply not supported by the evidence. There is no reason to think this.

If anything some writers have suggested, animals other than humans suffer more. After all humans are the only ones that we know can form coping startegies in relation to suffering. I.e. When keeping a human and sparrow captive, a human can be consoled with kind words or the promise of freedom at a later stage so can think through the suffering they incur. With the sparrow, there is no such hope just a struggle and fear for it's life. Similarly speaking few would say a child suffers less than an adult, as it just doesn't seem to be true.