you don't know what you're talking about.
why should survival be the standard? I want my entire needs hierarchy filled
I cannot even prove that rocks do not suffer, therefore it is worthless to prove the absence of suffering
you got there eventually.
When talking about suffering, I am generally speaking of "pain, as processed by a nervous system".
if you define it in a way that specifically precludes other creatures, that seems biased. you don't know how a single-celled organism might be able to suffer. that doesn't mean that they can't.
all divine command theories only incidentally reduce harm, and only sometimes. and kant (like all deontologists) is not concerned with outcomes, only the correctness of the action.
The entire point of the field of ethics and half the field of philosophy is to reduce suffering
this is just a lie. one type of ethical study, utilitarianism, is focused on that. many ethical theories don't regard suffering at all, or only as a facet of some other concern.
Plants and fungi, despite their increased complexity, do not have the capability to suffer either.
you can't prove this
Bacteria do not have the capability to feel suffering. They cannot even feel.
you can't prove this
I thought it would make you feel better that it's not personal
veganism is an ethical philosophy, not a protest or a boycott.
interesting that you appeal to a lexicon instead of an encyclopedia
aesthetic needs