Killing animals for taste pleasure is morally wrong, weather it happens in a factory farm or on that mythical uncles farm that tottaly loves and pets his animals to death.
And yes, it’s ok to kill plants because they do not feel pain. They can’t feel pain because they lack a nervous system to do so as well as an evolutionary reason for pain to exist.
And even if plants feel pain, it takes MUCH more plants to feed animals to then feed humans.
It isn’t morally wrong, it goes against your morals maybe, but that doesn’t make it wrong. We are allowed to disagree and you are free to choose the diet you prefer, as are the rest of us.
Nah, it’s morally wrong and if you are honest you will actually agree. Let me explain:
Let’s set a moral baseline that we both agree with.
Shooting a random person that has done no harm to anyone in the head without their explicit consent is morally bad, yes?
Now, what is different about, say, a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig? If we then apply that difference to that random human again, is it now less than morally bad to kill them?
The honest answer (and one that I can at least accept) is: there is no such difference.
The pig is food. I will eat the pig. I won’t eat the human. The pig isn’t indiscriminately murdered, it is slaughtered for food. We as a society still think it is morally right to kill someone convicted of a crime in some places. While I don’t agree with that, those states do. If morals can be grey, it’s because they are. Morality is a human construct. What’s moral today can be immoral tomorrow.
“what is different about a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig?”
oh, the classic rhetorical trap of “name the trait” which always devolves into a no-true-scotsman. on its face it’s purely a spectrum fallacy. the inability to identify a singular trait or even a set of traits that differentiate humans from pigs doesn’t change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
please, no one fall for this line of discussion. it’s just an exercise in shaming and time-wasting.
it takes MUCH more plants to feed animals to then feed humans.
most of the plants fed to animals are parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat. a great example is soy: we run over 4/5 of the global crop through an oil press and extract what we want, and feed the leftover plant matter to animals. no more plants are harmed in this process, and we conserve resources by getting food back from the animals.
Killing animals for taste pleasure is morally wrong, weather it happens in a factory farm or on that mythical uncles farm that tottaly loves and pets his animals to death.
And yes, it’s ok to kill plants because they do not feel pain. They can’t feel pain because they lack a nervous system to do so as well as an evolutionary reason for pain to exist.
And even if plants feel pain, it takes MUCH more plants to feed animals to then feed humans.
It isn’t morally wrong, it goes against your morals maybe, but that doesn’t make it wrong. We are allowed to disagree and you are free to choose the diet you prefer, as are the rest of us.
Nah, it’s morally wrong and if you are honest you will actually agree. Let me explain:
Let’s set a moral baseline that we both agree with. Shooting a random person that has done no harm to anyone in the head without their explicit consent is morally bad, yes?
Now, what is different about, say, a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig? If we then apply that difference to that random human again, is it now less than morally bad to kill them?
The honest answer (and one that I can at least accept) is: there is no such difference.
What is your answer?
The pig is food. I will eat the pig. I won’t eat the human. The pig isn’t indiscriminately murdered, it is slaughtered for food. We as a society still think it is morally right to kill someone convicted of a crime in some places. While I don’t agree with that, those states do. If morals can be grey, it’s because they are. Morality is a human construct. What’s moral today can be immoral tomorrow.
So if someone declares you food, is it now moral for them to slit your throat and butcher you?
Sure. I probably won’t have much say in the matter anyways. End my suffering!!
the “name the trait” argument is so well known vegans just call it “ntt”. they’re not here in good faith; they think they have a gotcha.
“what is different about a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig?”
oh, the classic rhetorical trap of “name the trait” which always devolves into a no-true-scotsman. on its face it’s purely a spectrum fallacy. the inability to identify a singular trait or even a set of traits that differentiate humans from pigs doesn’t change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
please, no one fall for this line of discussion. it’s just an exercise in shaming and time-wasting.
“I can’t answer this, so it must be a trick.”
Ok then.
most of the plants fed to animals are parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat. a great example is soy: we run over 4/5 of the global crop through an oil press and extract what we want, and feed the leftover plant matter to animals. no more plants are harmed in this process, and we conserve resources by getting food back from the animals.
you can’t prove this
what a gish gallop. you sure you didn’t have any more righteous claims too stack in?
I was directly adressing the points brought up by the other person. What did you contribute?
no one does that, anyway. but even if they did, what is wrong with it? eating animals is fine.