Different boundaries of concern
Some traditions directly prohibit injury to living beings. Others protect animals in limited ways while continuing to permit their use for food, labour or property.
Buddhist and Jain non-harm
The first Buddhist precept discourages killing, with intention affecting responsibility. Jain ahimsa develops a wider discipline that can include indirect participation and careless harm. Both raise questions about what people knowingly support through occupation and consumption.
Yoga, Taoism and the Sabbath
Yogic ahimsa can apply to bodily conduct, speech and exploitation. Taoist compassion and frugality can discourage needless cruelty and waste. The Sabbath command grants working animals rest, although the Decalogue does not prohibit animal use or slaughter.
Sentience
When a being can experience pain, fear and distress, actions affecting it are not morally neutral. This does not prove identical rights for humans and all animals, but it requires a relevant reason before severe animal suffering is discounted.
Institutional harm
Modern animal use divides responsibility among producers, workers, retailers, regulators and consumers. A harmful system does not become harmless merely because each participant performs one small part.
Necessity and alternatives
Survival and serious health needs may justify harms that convenience, custom, taste or profit do not. Where less harmful alternatives are realistic, the justification for preventable suffering becomes weaker.