Let me clarify that when I say “person,” I don’t mean “human being,” which is just where much confusion begins.

As it happens, we usually only consider humans as persons. When I say “person,” I don’t mean someone who has a job, who votes, who pays taxes or drives a car. By person, I mean a conscious individual capable of thought and who has his or her own desires and interests.

I say we usually don’t consider nonhuman animals in this category because we have a litany of state and local animal cruelty laws, and virtually everyone agrees — especially in light of the Michael Vick controversy — that dogs don’t have an interest in suffering such cruelty at the hands of humans.

But, curiously, there is no good reason, so far as I can tell, that excludes animals like pigs, cows, chickens and a host of other animals from this sentiment.

It’s a completely arbitrary distinction between furry friend and canned ham. All of the animals we eat have a brain and nervous system that facilitates consciousness and a desire to avoid physical pain.

A rock or amoeba, by contrast, does not have the mental abilities to be conscious, so they have no interests — they’re merely guided by the laws of nature and, in the case of the latter, genetic tendencies.

To equate animals such as cows and dogs with plankton or a virus is to discount not only scientific evidence but sheer common sense.

Farm animals, especially, are known for their desire to be with their family and form social groups; communities that are shattered by industrialized farming techniques.

They’re also not too keen on being kept in gestation crates for months — pens so small that mother pigs in them are unable to turn around.

It is arbitrary to decide whose suffering we consider morally important by any measure other than the capacity to suffer.

For example, if we attempt to say that to be worthy of consideration one must behave ethically toward others, we exclude young children and the mentally handicapped (and, presumably, they’re fair game for dinner). These groups of humans, for various reasons, are not held to the same moral standards as reasonable adults, but we rightly still consider their interests.

To differentiate between species is equally arbitrary. Although animals do not have an understanding of ethics and other human concepts, like infants and the mentally disabled, they still have desires that shouldn’t be categorically ignored.

The suffering of mammals — and arguably all animals we eat — is likely comparable to that of humans in many ways.

Furthermore, even if one doubts animal cognition, it seems that even the possibility of committing such grave atrocities demands we give them the benefit of the doubt.

If we fashion ourselves as ethical people, we have an obligation to do what is most beneficial for those affected, not what is convenient or normal for us.

And if we are to be logical people, we cannot throw up purely self-serving barriers to whomever receives our compassion, even if they make a tasty snack.

Beef and chicken are not required elements of our diets, and the routine treatment of farm animals would constitute animal cruelty if they were dogs or cats.

If we consider the interests of animals to an extent even remotely near that of humans, and we merely kill them for our taste buds, we must immediately stop using them for our frivolous desires.

To see the raw truth about just how awfully we treat animals, I encourage everyone to attend the showing of the documentary, “Earthlings” at 6 p.m. tonight in the Snyder-Phillips Hall theater.

I will be on the panel to discuss the film and answer audience questions.

“D. Bobby” in the flesh, so to speak.

Drew Robert Winter is a State News guest columnist, journalism and English senior and president of Students Promoting Animal Rights, or SPAR. Reach him at winterdr@msu.edu.