For instance, postmodernists regarded humanism itself as just another metanarrative, a myth that was socially constructed to favour one group at another’s expense....

.... To speak of humanism as being just another metanarrative is to presuppose the historic narrative in which cultures come and go. But if we can see that far and can identify the comings and goings of whole cultures, we must be thinking in relatively neutral terms.

So, the POMOs are wrong to be post-modernists, but isn't the attack on their argument ad hominem? I don't think post-modernism is worth the keystrokes it takes to type it out, but I think humanism is a metanarrative. Am I wrong about that because I'm wrong about something else? Is humanism not "just another metanarrative?"

Because we are moral beings, we need an excuse for all of the shitty things we do. Enslaving and eating herbivores is a shitty thing we do, like lions eat impalas. They don't justify it, and we shouldn't have to justify it, but we do, so we do. That's how homo sapiens rolls. (I am not sympathetic to vegetarian and vegan moralizing. I think we need to eat herbivores to make use of the otherwise inedible plant matter they consume. But I am sympathetic to the claims that farm animals are tortured on the way to being food. That, however, is a different ethical question.)