Not really the same thing. Causing suffering to a sentient being carries a different set of philosophical implications than to a being that operates on instinct.

Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.

Arguments are divided on what constitutes a "sentient being" though. There are plenty of science-fiction morality plays around at what points robots/ai should be considered sentient. At one point tribal cultures were seen as pretty much "not sentient" for all intents and purposes.

Can you give me a test that will definitely say if a being is sentient or not that doesn't basically boil down to "is this being a human or not?"

> Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.

There have been cultures where "very few people" were opposed to human sacrifice. This is meaningless as an argument.

When we're talking about what is socially acceptable, and making comparisons to slavery as was done elsewhere in this thread, that is the entire argument.

The argument is drawing parallels between slavery (currently not socially acceptable) and treatment of animals as livestock (currently socially acceptable). You're basically responding to this argument by regurgitating what current status quo is. Stating "the status quo is the status quo" isn't an argument on why the status quo is justified. It's just a statement of fact.

It's pretty clear at this point that elephants operate on more than raw instinct.

And even mourn their dead! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/elephants-mournin...