91–100 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I missed how anybody being "forced" to do anything. Their employees are still free to buy all the meat they want.
They're forced for example in the context of a business trip.
Every company has limitations and provisions on what they'll expense on business trips, and I don't see how this is any different.
I and a few of my past co-workers have been suspecting that the facilities team in a big tech company I used to work for had an evil genius plan to reduce costs: 1. Pick the most popular snack (e.g. nachos) 2. Replace it with less tasty alternative (e.g. kale chips) "for your health" 3. Consumption is a few times smaller 4. The company can claim they take better care of their workers and no one can accuse them of bei…
Is anybody being flown to this summer camp? A couple hours on a plane can match a few months of meat-free lunches. Especially considering employees might partially compensate with their non-expensed meals.
I think you are mistaken there. Maybe if you only care about CO2 emissions, but meat production is also incredibly wasteful on resources like water, and is at least objectionable from an animal welfare standpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?
We usually divide the world into moral agents (pretty much just humans) and non-moral-agents. The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything . Humans must take a positive action to eat something. Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imper…
If you're going to talk about morality and agency, it is not a positive choice to eat anything. It's acting out of necessity to survive. Choosing not to eat is self-destruction and there is absolutely nothing about that that's a moral choice. In fact, it's generally accepted to be immoral[1]. This is why we force feed people on hunger strikes and why suicide is illegal. Modern/western written law is based on natural law.
"Breatharianism" is pure stupidity/insanity and anyone who undertakes such practice can (and will) literally go die.
This is the anti-humanistic mindset that prioritizes "no impact" on nature above all else, instead of prioritizing human well being / human flourishing, which itself would account for environmental stewardship, but not to the level of sacrificing health to avoid eating animals (the healthiest option).
"The company estimates that the policy will save 445.1m pounds of CO2 emissions ... by 2023." That's 202,000 kt over a 5-year plan. Global fuel-based emissions in 2015: 36,061,710 kt CO2. In other words, they think they are so important as to "save" about 0.1% of global CO2 annually just by refusing to include meat in the menu of their own events and employee-expensed meals. I doubt the magnitude of their estimates.…
One company with one decision making an 0.1% reduction on global CO2 annually sounds pretty darn good to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) force WeWork owners to pay for something they're morally opposed to paying for b) force staff to do what exactly? Pay for their own meat?
I'm pro-choice. The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
It's obvious they are trying to save money, with the weirdest excuse they could find. Meat is the most expensive part of any meal.
Eating vegetarian is more expensive if you want to feel full and satiated in the end.
It's obvious they are trying to save money, with the weirdest excuse they could find. Meat is the most expensive part of any meal.