If a child gets bitten by a snake and the only treatment option in that moment is antivenin, would you argue that the child should die because it's immoral to kill/exploit the host animal? What about essential medications tested on animals? It would fail your "flip the question on its head" speciesism argument, so I'm genuinely curious.
I’m not sure I agree that it would fail that scenario. What I proposed is that you should ask if the same treatment to a human would be acceptable in order to save another human, so using that example, the question would be whether or not it is morally permissible to keep an innocent, unwilling human being in an enclosed space for the rest of their lives to be farmed for their excretions, in order to save the life of another human being. Do you think that would be permissible? I don’t, since it’s essentially just one life for another.
This is also an obviously loaded question, wherein I’m left with the option of saying farming animals is fine or the child should die. That child should be treated and their life should be saved, that goes without saying, the child is blameless in the fact that snakes are farmed for their venom. A fairer quesiton is whether or not that farming should take place, instead of pouring that time and money into seeking viable alternatives, the likes of which are already in development.
