Let's just get this (the moral argument for veganism) out there, so it's explicit and 'out in the open'. It's really quite simple, and it will give me the chance to explain a few aspects of logic! SWEEEETT! Come on, tell me that you're not excited ...
There are tons of things I could explain at this point, but we'll just start with the structure of this argument!
Oh excuse my manners. I haven't even introduced you two yet! Shucks.
Here is the basic ethical argument for veganism:
Premise A: It is wrong (or bad) to cause unecessary suffering to others (other sentient beings).
Premise B: The ways that we use (or exploit) animals for food, clothes, etc. is unecessary.
Conclusion: Therefore using animals for these purposes is wrong (or bad).
Now allow me to explain a few components of the logic here.
This is an ethical argument because it makes a statement about what is right or wrong (good or bad). Ethical arguments do this. This is of course a statement about what we shouldn't be doing, exploiting animals.
Also it is a syllogistic argument (a type of deductive logic). A syllogism is an argument where the conclusion is inferred by the premises, meaning it must follow.
The premises are axiomatic, meaning they are self-evident. That does not mean that they may NOT be contested. If someone wants to work against this argument they would need to attack the premises afterall.
That's probably about enough fun for now ... Settle down children. I'll write again soon. Then we can have loads more fun with logic. Soon I'll explain possible contentions with this argument and in so doing explain further the details behind the axioms.