Perhaps I am missing something. Say I am opposed to the murder of humans because of their fine manipulative control of their surrounding ecosystem, as you put it...
This position is a non-sequitur, as being part of a regime that controls nature is unrelated to one's suitability/propensity/will to continue living. It's a non-sequitur in the same way as being opposed to murdering white people because of
the colour of their skin. Also remember how white people have had the power to manipulate and control black people in the past.
...This makes them akin to gods. The rest of nature is profane. Humanity is Sacred. How is this position incoherent? By your own definition, nature and humanity are separate entities. "Speciesism" (I feel dirty just typing that nonsense out) is the only logical outcome.
I suppose you could assign some kind of "merit" to humanity (I wouldn't) for its ability to destroy nature. We need to unpack what is really meant by speciesism (and by extension, bigotry) though. I can provide some examples that may help:
I have limited supplies of sunscreen, so I preferentially offer it to the white person sitting next to me in preference to the black person.
Verdict: The requirement for sunscreen is linked biologically or physiologically to race in this example, so the association is not a non-sequitur, therefore it is not racism, and not bigotry.
I have a policy of hiring white people in preference to black people in cases where their qualifications are comparable.
Verdict: The ability to do the job is not logically related to race, so the association is a non-sequitur, therefore it is racism (bigotry).
I hear about a captive breeding program for an endangered species. I'm pretty uncomfortable about it because I know I would never accept such a thing for humans, but it's explained to me that because of how badly we've screwed the ecosystem, this species is likely to go extinct, which will have a flow-on effect and harm other animals, and the breeding program will boost numbers in the wild.
Verdict: Since we have caused the demise of the species through our ability to manipulate nature, and their low numbers have now become a characteristic of the species that necessitates increasing the numbers, it logically follows that we should use our manipulation of nature in a way that directly addresses the characteristic of endangerment and helps the species and surrounding ecosystem. I might be opposed to keeping animals in captivity, but I wouldn't be able to use speciesism as grounds for opposition, since the necessity is logically connected to species differences and is not a non-sequitur. This is therefore not speciesism or bigotry.
I'm getting lazy now. So just think of an example where you say it's ok to kill someone because of Characteristic X, but in reality Characteristic X has nothing to do with suitability/propensity/will to continue living. If X is a race then it's racism. If X is a species, or the possession of a tail/feathers/gills, lack of opposing thumbs, ability to be controlled by humans (which is effectively the reason you used) etc. then it's speciesism, a form of bigotry.
Basically, in order for the killing in Example 4 to be logically consistent, Characteristic X would have to relate directly to suitability/propensity/will to live. If you have a policy of killing the terminally ill and suffering (euthanasia) then this would not be a non-sequitur. You could say a similar thing about killing all suicidal people. I would still be opposed to it and deem it unnecessary, but I wouldn't be able to call you a bigot.
It is the "while he sleeps" that is causing the debate to stall, and that is because it is contrived to do so. Killing someone "while he sleeps" is not solely part of a toolkit. Whereas attacking vulnerability certainly is part of a toolkit, this particular example ought to concurrently be considered a circumstance, a setting. We're talking about the difference between choosing which weapons to take to a battle, versus deciding under which circumstances battle is an acceptable option in the first place. Those are two completely distinct factors, and the intent to combine them into one is just plain manipulative.
Surely choosing circumstance is part of the toolkit?
But yes, doing so can be honorable. It depends. Are you killing him to steal his car keys? Then no, I doubt anyone would find that honorable(or even understandable, frankly). But what if you're killing him because he raped your daughter and managed to squirm his way out of prison time? I would consider that an honorable killing.
Agreed. Did any of the animals killed for meat, eggs and dairy knowingly rape your daughter?
Honor doesn't have anything to do with fairness anyway, honor refers simply to preserving your reputation among your fellow men.
In context of the hunt, though: you seem to fail to understand that humans use spears, arrows, traps, and guns because humans are at an inherent physical disadvantage. It is not a matter of men already being stronger, faster, and smarter than beasts, and then piling on even more ways to enforce superiority. The animal already exists at a higher level, and is in its element; these tools are ways to level the playing field.
I guess if you're saying that a level playing field doesn't matter in a discussion of honour (or even ethics I assume) then there's probably no point arguing that last bit. Either way, it's a non-sequitur if we're talking about whether someone should be killed.