The moral difference is the degree to which the creature can suffer and the capacity for it to flourish.

Suffering is a subjective experience, impossible to see any but your own. I experience so it’s likely humans do, other animals are similar and different to various degrees. Do you doubt the size of the animal’s brain or the configuration of their nervous systems has something to do with their capacity to experience suffering?

Flourishing considers the best potential life vs the worse potential life. Is it full-filling to be a cow just eating grass with the herd? Not in comparison to a human’s potential experiences. Could a pet cow have a fulfilling life with a loving owner as a pet dog? Not in all the same ways as it’s different, but perhaps it could have an equally high peak. As much as I know about a tuna fish, they won’t form as a meaningful bond with their owner - their peak life is not as high as a dog.

The argument would be how intelligent the farmed creature is. People have a great connection with dogs due to the dog’s intelligence.

Problem is cows and pigs are also very intelligent. The only reason people are so comfortable eating them is they aren’t pets in a home for 99% of people. Out of sight, out of mind. So people feel it’s absurd to eat dog, because they can look up from their screen and see a dog happy for their attention, practically family.

I Guarantee if people were around a pig or a cow as a pet as often or regularly as dogs, we wouldn’t eat them.

This always was so strange to me.

I would eat a dog just as I would eat a horse or cow…

If the meat tastes awful I would understand, and I would not want to eat an animal I have an emotional bond with.

But any other animal is fair game to me.

I kept rats as pets, and I loved my rats and wanted no harm to come their way, but I have no problem calling the exterminator if there’s an infestation.

Those are not my rats, so why would I care?