Thanks for showing us this , important to keep in mind <| sep |> Did you pay standard free or express ? <| sep |> I think that this philosopher ' s approach is a little bit simplistic . He breaks down these approaches as being allornothing propositions . As in , there either must be one reason why it is ok to kill animals for food , or there is no reason which could justify killing animals for food . Now , I ' m no philosopher , but I am an attorney . In the law , often times a rule will be broken down into elements . That is how I break this problem down as well . I see two elements which allow for an animal to be killed for food 1 the animal is nonhuman , and 2 the animal is significantly less intelligent than an ordinary person . If both these elements are met , the animal may be killed and eaten . However , if either element is not met , it would be impermissible to kill that animal . By doing this we protect both highly intelligent animals e . g . Dolphins , great apes , and mentally handicapped humans from falling into the ok to kill and eat category .