In reading a student paper on animal rights/suffering today, a new thought crossed my mind. Much of the literature on this subject decries anthropcentrism and the tendency to value humans above other species, especially when attempting to reduce suffering and pain in the world. Given the fact that other animals experience pain and suffering, a number of people argue that the only morally acceptable way to eat meat is to let animals life 'natural' lives and refrain from causing suffering when they are killed (or die natural deaths).
It occured to me today, that people who hold to this position should also believe that cannibalism is ok as long as the humans eaten live natural lives and no suffering is involved in their deaths. In other words, if humans and other animals are equals because we all suffer, what grounds would there be for prohibiting cannibalism? It's a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument because I don't think animal rights advocates would accept cannibalism.
The only way out seems to be vegetarianism, but then that raises the problem of the value of plants.
What the issue really seems to point to, is the very basis of ethics itself. Ethics isn't based in reason and logic, but in basic feelings. We have a basic feeling that causes a preference for our own species. This accounts for why we typically are not repulsed by meat eaters, but are repulsed by cannibals. We also have feelings for other animals and dislike it when other animals suffer, but that fact does not trump our basic orientation towards our own species.
Opinions?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13