Animal rights groups are always trying to pursue others to go vegan.
One argument goes like this:
Animals want to live, and they have the right to live, thus we should not harm animals as that will make them suffer -------
One issue I see concerning  is that the same argument can be used by those who want to continue to eat meat, fish etc (or want to avoid eating plant-based foods):
Plants want to live, and they have the right to live, thus we should not harm plants as that will make them suffer ----------[1.1]
People who advance this argument may position themselves as plant lovers, but not necessarily so.
The above logic  can be generalized as:
X wants to live, and X have the right to live, thus we should not harm X as that will make X suffer -------------[*]
By regressing all the way down the food-chain, people may end up taking positions as
microbe lovers" to conclude that "human should not eat at all"--------------[#]
- Is the infinite regress I outlined above logical?
- If 1 is false,what is my error in the reasoning?
- If 1 is true, then what kind of X can arrest the infinite regress in  so that people are unable to rebutt by using , or ending up with unrealistic conclusions such as [#]?