We treat ethics as opinion when we should recognise it as architecture. If I say "murder is wrong," you don't reply "that's your perspective." Yet when someone says "killing sentient beings for pleasure is wrong," we say "to each their own." This asymmetry reveals conceptual confusion, not moral complexity.
Ethics aren't arbitrary preferences. They're structural claims about coherence. A bridge can't ignore gravity whilst claiming "gravity is your opinion." Ethical reasoning operates under similar constraints—not physical but logical.
Consider the foundational axiom: we all want to continue existing. This isn't cultural construct. It's observable across sentient beings—humans, dogs, pigs, chickens. Call it Spinoza's conatus, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, or evolutionary survival. The observation matters: sentient beings prefer existing over not existing.
From this axiom, we derive structural requirements. If beings want to exist, imposing death requires justification that holds under scrutiny. Self-defence? Coherent when genuinely threatened. Survival necessity? Coherent when no alternatives exist. But pleasure? Convenience? Tradition? These justifications fail examination.
Veganism emerges not as lifestyle choice but as logical consequence. If the drive to exist matters ethically and exists across species boundaries, then killing for taste requires justifying something fundamentally unjustifiable. The question shifts from "do you care about animals?" to "can this reasoning hold?"
We maintain hierarchies—humans possess reason, language, complex thought