181–190 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about understanding the costs of the decisions and accepting them. If you say "Well nobody would be ok with industrial slaughterhouses or a number of other things" I say, "yes, that's kinda the point here."
Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons? So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This actio…
Basically, free will (and the physical manifestation of it: liberty) is argued to be more important than the lack of evil. And you can't have realistic free will and liberty without accepting that bad things will happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly. The point is nobody would do that. I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork or if they were forced to be a single mother living on minimum wage they'd probably fight on behalf of fast food workers. My supposition is that people shouldn't voluntarily shroud themselves in ignorance for culinary delight but instead, should take full responsibility for all…
I've worked in a slaughterhouse/processing facility, and I'm certainly not a vegetarian.
The thing I'm not ok with is people who pretend like they are the modern incarnation of St. Francis of Assisi while eating animals for every meal and having a bunch of leather goods.
Such people aren't saintly patrons of the animals and they should come to terms with it. It's really just about honesty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their answer was to hang the light higher. No explanation for keeping the nightly illumination.
That article is depressing. They nonchalantly attribute the behaviour to boredom and belittling the creature like a child: "Otto is constantly craving for attention and always comes up with new stunts so we have realised we will have to keep more careful eye on him". Let's not attribute any aspect of his behaviour to the crippling reality of captivity. Oh, no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US…
> how can slaughtering [animals] for food be considered ethical? Life begets life. Death is part of life. Where necessary, living requires killing. Where people cultivate The Golden Rule, life will get better and death will get fewer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical? >In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US…
> how can slaughtering them > for food be considered > ethical Humane slaughter that they don't see coming ... what's the issue? I would be more, rather than less, comforted to find out that one day I'll suddenly die painlessly, instantly and unawares, and am not too bothered if it's because someone plans to eat me
If we accept that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then unnecessarily harming them is unequivocally immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (del…
There is a cut off point as most people here would not eat humans (come on, how are human babies intelligent?) dolpins or dogs. Eating pigs just makes people hypocrites; people just ignore it and stuff it away as you need bacon and it is too annoying to face all this pesky stuff. And 'would not want to live in a world without'? That is a strange remark on many levels; if pigs are deamed sentient tomorrow and hence of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think that if someone was forced to have a pet pig for a while they'd probably stop eating pork Unfortunately, this is often not the case in my own experience. It certainly does for some people, but that course is by no means universal. And when the well-being of other thinking, feeling individuals is at stake, I'd rather not rely on this kind of approach.
This really worked in my experience. In my family we often used to eat chicken and while eating them the only thing on mind was how it tasted and how it was cooked etc. Then my parents started rearing some chickens in their backyard. That changed everything. There were about 7 or 8 of them. As the chicks grew up, they could identify each of them and know about individual treats. They would call some of them by names…
I actually have neighbors who treat their chickens like pets for several years then give them to someone to slaughter. They don't eat them but they're fine with other people eating them and they're fine with eating other chickens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons? So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This actio…
What you're describing is an extended version of the Problem of Evil. Also related is the moral and limitation of government itself (human chose to give up certain liberty for government). Basically, free will (and the physical manifestation of it: liberty) is argued to be more important than the lack of evil. And you can't have realistic free will and liberty without accepting that bad things will happen.