191–200 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sentience - I really don't see any other sensible qualifier for moral consideration.
The two can be combined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_quotient
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Even if that someday is an incredibly small fraction of your natural life? Even as little as 1/100 of what you could live if you were well cared for? I take it that's not what you meant by "one day". If we accept that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then unnecessarily harming them is unequivocally immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is no more evidence for your theory than theirs. Neither can be proven. So "let's not attribute any aspect of his behaviour" to anything is the only correct response.
That seems to support the previous posters theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
It is not required anymore. You can live fine without. So no.
It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence
They are still brilliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not required anymore. You can live fine without. So no.
I definitely believe humans can live very well without killing. Mushrooms, cannabis seed pomace, spirulina, beans with grains, etc provide great nutrient sources. Still, some people depend on hunting and farm animals now, and it will take a challenging cultural shift and some resources to bootstrap an economically advantageous and (here, commonly viewed) ethical lifestyle change. For myself, I eventually want to sust…
Animals eating pray is different; we humans however can choose and we do not need to. Even if I think if you (or someone else but not some bio factory) get up in the morning and chase your own boar, hang it and slaughter it then it is ok but buying some packet in the shop should at least give you pause.
Let me know how the dogfood works out that would be good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that someday is an incredibly small fraction of your natural life? Even as little as 1/100 of what you could live if you were well cared for? I take it that's not what you meant by "one day". If we accept that animals are worthy of moral consideration, then unnecessarily harming them is unequivocally immoral.
I think if I wasn't going to see it coming, it wouldn't bother me while I was alive, and I'm not the kind of person who believes something will bother me when I'm dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if I wasn't going to see it coming, it wouldn't bother me while I was alive, and I'm not the kind of person who believes something will bother me when I'm dead.
You're saying that if you knew someone was going to kill you sometime in the near future, as long as you wouldn't see it coming, it wouldn't bother you? I expect you're in the minority on that.