Very interesting. I wonder if this fact alone could make eating them unethical. Who should we ask this question to? A biologist, a priest, or a philosopher?
A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
So because animals and humans are equivalent in your eyes, it'd be moral to stalk, hunt and kill other humans for food if you were starving?
I don't equate animals on equal grounds with humans, but I would say yes. if it's a choice between me starving to death or killing and eating another homo sapien, I choose to hunt and feast (preferably not at child though. I don't know if I could bring myself to do that lol). as far as my priorities go, my life>someone else's and I'm prepared to make that choice if my life is on the line.
ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
Motivation: Dark Worker
Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
MTG Color: black/red
Male Archtype: King/Lover
"You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
"I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire
My view of ethics is one based on harm. Conscious action (or deliberate inaction) that imposes harm on others is unethical. As such, I have trouble with the idea that ethics are situational. If it is unethical to harvest the tears of children for kicks, then it is also unethical to do the same as the only way to appease a malevolent god. That's not to say that it isn't necessary; if it's either tears or severe and prolonged smiting, I am going to choose the tears. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the only viable option, but that does not negate that evil.
So, either it is unethical to kill animals (due to harm caused to said animals), or it is not. That animal is now dead whether you were on the edge of starvation or you just thought it would be funny.