https://www.kialo.com/is-it-morally-acceptable-to-kill-non-human-animals-while-it-still-being-not-morally-acceptable-to-kill-humans-59882

kialo-veganism-spider.md

Argument

1. If and only if something has the potential to understand death, or is cared for, it has moral consideration.
2. There are animals that don't have the potential to understand death and are not cared for.
3. Therefore some animals don't have moral consideration.
4. Humans and pets have the potential to understand death or are cared for.
5. Therefore humans and pets have moral consideration.
6. Therefore some animals don't have moral consideration while humans and pets have moral consideration.

Formal Counterpart

Glossary

$Dx: x \text{ has the potential to understand death}$

$Cx: x \text{ is cared for}$

$Mx: x \text{ has moral consideration (cannot be killed)}$

$Ax: x \text{ is an animal}$

$Hx: x \text{ is a human}$

$Px: x \text{ is a pet}$

Argument

$$ \forall{x}((Dx \vee Cx) \leftrightarrow Mx) $$

$$ \exists{x}(Ax \wedge \neg{Dx} \wedge \neg{Cx}) $$

$$ \exists{x}(Ax \wedge \neg{Mx}) $$

$$ \forall{x}((Hx \rightarrow (Dx \vee Cx)) \wedge (Px \rightarrow (Dx \vee Cx))) $$

$$ \forall{x}((Hx \rightarrow Mx) \wedge (Px \rightarrow Mx)) $$

$$ \exists{x}((Ax \wedge \neg{Mx}) \wedge \forall{x}((Hx \rightarrow Mx) \wedge (Px \rightarrow Mx)) $$

Proof of Validity

Tree Proof Source