OP addresses it by simply saying it’s not exploitation and the animals are not harmed.
In some cases.
Both things are false
In the cases OP isn’t talking about.
So what the fuck more are we supposed to have read?
Everything the other guy listed is the standard industry-scale production. What you should’ve read is that there are alternatives that ensure the animals are happy and taken care of.
It is a fallacy to say there are alternatives that ensure the animals are happy and taken care of. That is simply not true from an ethical point of view, which isn’t really concerned with your subjective measure of another individual’s “happiness.”
There is no ethical way to create an individual with the preformed intention of forcing that individual into a state of life-long dependence, where you are its only means of survival. That on its face is already profoundly unethical, it’s a truly monstrous and selfish thing to do to another individual.
The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children. They are entitled to the exact same unconditional love and protection.
There is no ethical way to create an individual with the preformed intention of forcing that individual into a state of life-long dependence, where you are its only means of survival. That on its face is already profoundly unethical, it’s a truly monstrous and selfish thing to do to another individual.
By that logic, having a pet dog is somehow deeply unethical, and the fact that humanity created dogs from wolves over tens of thousands of years is an abomination
Does that actually make sense? I would say no, I dont believe pet dogs suffer through their existence if they are well treated and cared for. I dont think having a dog is unethical, even though I have never had one
In some cases.
In the cases OP isn’t talking about.
Everything the other guy listed is the standard industry-scale production. What you should’ve read is that there are alternatives that ensure the animals are happy and taken care of.
It is a fallacy to say there are alternatives that ensure the animals are happy and taken care of. That is simply not true from an ethical point of view, which isn’t really concerned with your subjective measure of another individual’s “happiness.”
There is no ethical way to create an individual with the preformed intention of forcing that individual into a state of life-long dependence, where you are its only means of survival. That on its face is already profoundly unethical, it’s a truly monstrous and selfish thing to do to another individual.
The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children. They are entitled to the exact same unconditional love and protection.
By that logic, having a pet dog is somehow deeply unethical, and the fact that humanity created dogs from wolves over tens of thousands of years is an abomination
Does that actually make sense? I would say no, I dont believe pet dogs suffer through their existence if they are well treated and cared for. I dont think having a dog is unethical, even though I have never had one
Yup, see this response.