You're viewing a single thread.
Nobody is saying that fish are moral agents that can empathise with other beings. That doesn't man that they're not moral subjects; the ability to understand that one is causing harm is not a prerequisite for the ability to suffer oneself. I think everyone knows this intuitively, but it does feel good to have our less moral habits be justified by memes that we would otherwise find to be illogical.
You are right, but I believe putting a cease to life is not inherently bad. If we could kill animals without letting them feel anything, that wouldn't really be bad.
I mean sure, but the animal agriculture industry is typically inhumane and cruel to animals while they're still alive, because it's more profitable that way. Minimising the suffering they feel when they die is not going to do much really.
Ethical consideration has to extend to more than just painless death to be worth a damn. I can't walk into an infant ward and painlessly murder infants in their sleep for a reason.
Yes, the reason being they are human.
Why is that a reason?
Because most people view it as morally wrong to kill another human.
This is why we should be killing pigs with nitrogen, rather than CO2. CO2 is how a mammal determines it is suffocating, meanwhile the air is mostly made up of nitrogen so we ignore it. However, it's precisely this which makes it dangerous to humans working nearby (also the fact that CO2 is heavier than air so you can have open pits), and it's ruled too expensive to do it humanely.
Or we could you know just not gas and kill pigs.
I like bacon. Also there's something to be said of the simple fact that almost all life eats other life. Why is plant life lesser than animal life to you?
However, the day they start selling lab grown bacon I will gladly switch to that.
Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.
But let's entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you're raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.
Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.
I didn't say preservation of all life was the most important factor. I said almost all life eats other life.
There's a big difference between kicking a dog and eating food.
You've clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.
There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.
Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing and eating them.At least I know I'd prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.
But what about a choice between being kicked and never being born? Most animals that are eaten are bred to be eaten. They would not exist if people weren't going to eat them.
I think when going this route it helps to view it with an analogy as it makes it more intuitive to understand why I don't find this an appealing view.
If I were to to adopt this view point, this would mean I would be also ok with breeding humans for any given purpose (let's say Slavery as it's an easy one) as I could justify it saying: "It's better for them as they would have never existed otherwise". However I think intuitively most people would agree that would still not make it ok and that's why I would not consider it ok for animals. Because fundamentally we're still violating - I think - fundamental rights. (e.g. most negative rights like right not to be killed)
P.S.: I have a rights based approach on how we should interact with animals and not a weéfarost one as I think it leads to these kinds of issues where you end up justifying terrible things.
We both know that's not going to happen. If I want to have bacon, would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, or use a blunt butter knife to kill them?
I sincerely believe it's going to happen. Furthermore of course when presenting between two horrible choices I would the choose the less horrible option. Fortunately the choice is not between these two it's actually, "Would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, use a blunt butter knife or not kill them". I think when not forgetting the third option it's clear it's the better one.
All I can say is that you're much more of an optimist than I.
Maybe we should eat you instead of the pig. I'm pretty sure the pig does not want bacon.
Thanks, now I know you're completely clueless about even the most basic things. Pigs will happily eat bacon.
Happily? Lol
Pigs will eat just about anything and seem generally happy when they do so.
And if someone did that to you?
They wouldn't be able to think about it because they'd be dead.
By eating vegetables you are doing harm anyway, they are living organisms after all.
Even if we grant that plant "pain" is 100% morally equivalent to the pain of other beings (it isn't, and you don't earnestly believe that), we still have to eat them as a matter of biology, since humans aren't producers and must consume nutrients from other life. It's the same reason we can't pass moral judgment on a carnivore like a lion for eating a Zebra.
I am curious. Do you believe that humans has always had the option to not eat animals?
What I am asking is, is there some point during the evolution of homo sapience where it shifted from being morally acceptable to being morally wrong to eat other animals?
I'm not the same person, but it's not about our physical evolution imo. It's about advances in agriculture, our understanding of nutrition and ability to supplement or fortify foods with things like vitamin B12. Without those things, trying to cut out all animal products would probably be a terrible idea. With them, it becomes a viable choice for people with a good understanding of nutrition and without health problems that clash with veganism.
Morality depends on culture, what is wright in one culture is wrong in another. This is easy to see and pretty obvious, unless that you are some kind of supremacist that thinks that your beliefs are the only valid. If your problem is pain you can kill the animal with one shot in the head and it will be painless, some farmers do this in order to avoid suffering.
"Bro I really wanna eat your dog bro. Bro it's my culture bro just let me take a little bite bro I swear it's the most delicious thing you've ever tasted. Bro just let me eat your dog bro, what are you some kinda racist?"
Common mistake, but plants are not moral subjects. If you harm any animal, even an insect, it will respond in ways that you or I would; fleeing, retaliating, or generally just panicking. I think you already understand that plants do not (although they do have biochemical adaptations to sense and respond to stress).
While plants don't possess some of the superior organs of animals, we're constantly being surprised by how much they actually sense and communicate. I wouldn't discount the similarities between the two kingdoms as being lesser than their differences just yet.
Ants only "have biochemical adaptation to sense and respond to stress".
Other people have pointed out the differences between plants and most animals, but it's also worth noting that livestock need to eat plants. Because energy is wasted between each stage in a food chain, an omnivorous diet likely kills more plants anyway.