We’re omnivores with canine teeth
Do you think that because we posses a physical attribute that allows us to do something, we are therefore morally justified to do it?
People are indoctrinated their whole life to believe that we are natural omnivores. The reality is, it is entirely irrelevant if we are natural omnivores or not, it provides no moral justification for us to exploit animals as just because we can do something, does not mean that it is ethical for us to do it.
If someone believes that we are an omnivore then by default that means that we are able to obtain energy and nutrients from plants and as such, we are able to sustain life from plants alone. Consequently, that means that there is no necessity for us to eat animals and because there is no necessity it cannot be morally justified.
The canine argument is definitely one of the most amusing justifications that people try and use to justify that it is acceptable to pay for someone else to kill an animal on their behalf.
The hippopotamus has the largest canines of any land animal, and they are entirely herbivorous. Other herbivores with sizeable canine teeth include the gorilla, the saber- toothed deer and camels.
Our canines are not capable of tearing raw flesh or killing animals and instead are there so that we can bite into hard, crunchy plants (like apples!).
Content copy adapted from "30 Non-Vegan Excuses & How To Respond To Them" by Earthling Ed
The web was meant to be read, not squished.