All Animals Must Be Put To Death

There is no known foundational epistemology that proves that sentient nonhuman animals have inherent rights. Rights are social constructions formulated by bodies of government, normally by a human government. For example, an animal cannot object or file a complaint to authorities and does not have a moral conscience. Humans can do both and have one. When an Ethical Vegan swats a fly and it dies does that fly have moral rights? Given these facts I will form my argument on why there is nothing inherently immoral in killing animals indiscriminately for our own justifiable reasons.

Animal Suffering:  The best way to end the suffering of rabbits,weasels, badgers, birds, hares, and rats, deers, and gazelle etc being hunted by predators in horrid environments and suffering from disease we have an obligation to end their suffering. We do the same with our human family in the hospital. If we have the apparent moral justification to end the suffering of our parents the same will apply to lower animals. 

Predatorial Primates Do Not Regulate Moral Codes And Kill Us So We Are Justified And Protecting Our Species: Some of these prey animals I mentioned don't even live long enough and the reason is because they are hunted and killed by Lions, Eagles, Leopards, Orcas, Sharks, Polar Bears etc. Some of these apex animals are a danger to our very own species. We have a right to self defense. But in the same way we use our Military to eliminate threats that are not immediate threats but potentially imminent threats overseas we are justified and handing down Apex-Predatorial Cleansing of these particularl animals that harm us in our very own backyards.

Occupation of Space: Humans are on pace to populate the earth by 2060 with a staggering 10 BILLION PEOPLE! Animals make a small portion of land but we can't just force these animals into a zoo-slavery for there whole existence.

 Animal Meat Has Proteins Necessary For Human Nourishment: Vegans are just as responsible for animal deaths like meat eaters. By killing animals, humans may be required to consume at least some meat, because doing so causes less harm to animals than not when on a vegan diet.

The argument goes like this; a diet that includes some meat causes less harm than a vegan diet, because when you think about the number of animals that are killed in the processing, harvesting, sowing of fields and so on, the numbers that are estimated are about 1.8 billion animals. If you look at the number that would be killed in a purely animal based diet, the estimates are 1.35 billion. This what philosophers call the ‘Least Harm Principle’, is the idea that when you are faced with options wherein some harm is going to be done, you are required to pick the option that does the least harm. If Vegans really care about animal welfare, if we look at the number of animals that are killed as the result of a purely vegan diet, there is no way that does least harm. We are morally obligated to at least consume some meat, if what we’re saying is that animal welfare is a priority.

Beef has more bioavailable nutrients like B12 that isn't found in plants. Animal Meat also has a higher Leucine content responsible for muscle growth.

Given these reason I have concluded we must ethically put to death as best as we can all remaining nonhuman animals. This sounds harsh and unethical but it's for the better of our society and animals suffering.

While all of those arguments are valid and strong, they support a different resolution. All of those support why we "should" kill all animals, or why it would be beneficial to us and the animals. No amount of proof you come up with can justify the resolution that we "must" do anything.

In philosophy, this is called the "ought-is" problem. You cannot derive an ought from an is using basic logic. Just because something is the case, that doesn't automatically imply that there is something you should do, or a best course of action unless you specify a certain goal. A better resolution might be animals must be killed in order to achieve a better life for humans. However without that added clause, you can't argue that we should do anything.

But even further beyond that, you didn't argue that we should do anything, you argued that we must do something. Just as you can't justify a should by logic, you definitely can't argue a must. By saying must, you imply that there is no other course of action. This is not true, as it is perfectly logically conceivable that we don't murder all animals. Once again, if you had added a "in order to" it would have worked, but sadly you did not. The resolution, "we must kill all animals in order to insure the well being of humanity" is at least a logically defensible resolution though it would be difficult. However saying that something is a must without providing a specific goal is impossible to back up with any sort of syllogism.