This video seems to conclude that ' kale sandwiches ' are the only moral way to go . Yet doesn ' t the argument apply equally well to kale , or really anything at all ? True , kale does not feel pain , yet it isn ' t it equally wrong to eat someone with neurological disorders like CIPA who feel no pain ? Kale may not have an especially vibrant internal life but , then again , neither does a pig . Is it perhaps the brain that separates the two ? That is an extremely tricky line to draw . Does a flatworm ' s bundle of neurons count as a brain ? Is it immoral to drink alcohol , knowing you may kill neurons in the process ? In addition , some alien with an entirely different physical substrate for their consciousness could then rightly justify the eating of us They lack organ X , so it must be alright . Clearly , no line we ' ve seen thus far can adequately separate the two . The only moral things to eat are the inanimate . Assuming , of course , that we can somehow distinguish the destruction of the inanimate from that of the animate . Of course , this whole exercise is a bit silly there are very few people who would argue that it is immoral to eat kale . Therefor , following the line of the video , there must be something we have missed . There must be some line that neatly separates kale from humans that is not present in either this response or the original video . Who ' s to say this line doesn ' t also separate pigs from humans ? This is not a proof that it is moral to eat pigs , only a proof that our attempt has been incomplete . The original argument is not airtight there is thinking yet to be done before we can decide . Any ideas ?