the question is “why”. as in 'why would you kll it" and if the answer is almost any justification (for food, for clothing, for medicine), then it’s probably fine. everything dies and if their death serves some purpose, that’s good.
Hey, would you be fine if I kill you with a justification? For example, I like your stuff, will it be OK if I kill you and take your stuff? What if I also eat your leg, will it be better or worse?
Carl Cohen said “Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” and you are demonstrating this for everyone right here
Siting a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them, as the source of your morals, is deeply terrible by it’s own, but even besides that, what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote? “Animals need to be exploited because it’s human’s true obligation”. This doesn’t make any sense as an argument unless you’re truing to justify your sadism by beating down every opposing argument with repetition and circular reasoning. That’s what you’re demonstrating here for everyone.
Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free
moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral
claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none
or
The issue is one of kind. Humans are of such a kind that they may be the
subjects of experiments only with their voluntary consent . . . Animals are of such a kind
that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or make a
moral choice. What humans retain when disabled, animals never had
Yeah, much argument, very reason. “It’s cool to kill those whom I want to kill because they’re different, you see, therefore don’t have my rights”.
" what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote"
that you are demonstrating how treating animals and humans differently is essential. we don’t think it’s ok to spray toxic chemicals over whole populations of people, but doing so to crop-destroying insects is widely accepted practice.
That’s not what those words in that order mean.
But if that’s the argument you are trying to have with me, then what a weird attempt at gotcha that is, what a misguided argument it is. It’s one step above from “well, potato is also alive therefore vegans are murderers hehehe I’m very smart”.
I don’t know about you, but I like to minimise pain and distress to other creatures that can feel pain and distress, that I do. And this weird chain of logic “you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” doesn’t work in this framework.
“a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them”
this is pure ad hominem. it’s called poisoning the well. what they say is either true or false, and the individual making the claim doesn’t change the truth value
You’re doing “fallacy fallacy” but badly. I’m not poisoning the well, I’m clearly stating that I dislike a person that states garbage opinions. Their opinions are bad, and a person is bad for thinking it, those are two separate thoughts I have.
“Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none”
You’re on the same level of evangelism, it’s just you’re advocating both for status quo, which is ew, gross, but also for killing animals, which is a bit evil.
I know you’re probably not doing it for real, but I will answer as if you’re actually that alien that dropped out of parallel universe where suffering doesn’t exist, and trying to understand our customs.
Killing animals for food and clothing in a world where alternatives exist, is bringing unnecessary suffering in the world. This can happen either because you don’t care about bringing unnecessary suffering, or because you don’t recognise it’s existence. Both are kind of the definition of bad.
I don’t mean ethical in the sense of her choice being good or bad, but in that people intentionally choose to be vegan because of their ethical belief, as opposed to a cultural preference or a medical restriction.
TBF, her diet was an ethical choice, and his is probably an unexamined cultural default.
No, her being vegan is a dietary choice. No more or less ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
If you don’t see ethical differences between killing a live creature and not doing so, your ethical compass is basically non-existent.
the question is “why”. as in 'why would you kll it" and if the answer is almost any justification (for food, for clothing, for medicine), then it’s probably fine. everything dies and if their death serves some purpose, that’s good.
Hey, would you be fine if I kill you with a justification? For example, I like your stuff, will it be OK if I kill you and take your stuff? What if I also eat your leg, will it be better or worse?
Carl Cohen said “Speciesism is not merely plausible; it is essential for right conduct, because those who will not make the morally relevant distinctions among species are almost certain, in consequence, to misapprehend their true obligations.” and you are demonstrating this for everyone right here
Siting a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them, as the source of your morals, is deeply terrible by it’s own, but even besides that, what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote? “Animals need to be exploited because it’s human’s true obligation”. This doesn’t make any sense as an argument unless you’re truing to justify your sadism by beating down every opposing argument with repetition and circular reasoning. That’s what you’re demonstrating here for everyone.
or
Yeah, much argument, very reason. “It’s cool to kill those whom I want to kill because they’re different, you see, therefore don’t have my rights”.
" what the fuck are you even trying to say by this quote"
that you are demonstrating how treating animals and humans differently is essential. we don’t think it’s ok to spray toxic chemicals over whole populations of people, but doing so to crop-destroying insects is widely accepted practice.
That’s not what those words in that order mean.
But if that’s the argument you are trying to have with me, then what a weird attempt at gotcha that is, what a misguided argument it is. It’s one step above from “well, potato is also alive therefore vegans are murderers hehehe I’m very smart”.
I don’t know about you, but I like to minimise pain and distress to other creatures that can feel pain and distress, that I do. And this weird chain of logic “you value your life more than a life of an insect, therefore there are different types of animals, therefore one has all the rights and the others can be tortured and exploited” doesn’t work in this framework.
“a biological essentialist vivisection enthusiast with weird ideas about strict structures, that were frowned upon in the 80th when he was writing them”
this is pure ad hominem. it’s called poisoning the well. what they say is either true or false, and the individual making the claim doesn’t change the truth value
You’re doing “fallacy fallacy” but badly. I’m not poisoning the well, I’m clearly stating that I dislike a person that states garbage opinions. Their opinions are bad, and a person is bad for thinking it, those are two separate thoughts I have.
“Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none”
this is exactly what deontologists believe
Yeah, and that’s only one way of many why strict deontologists are morally wrong.
circular reasoning is internally consistent.
It’s also important to note that there’s not a single part of the animal that doesn’t get used.
Shit, even livestock that dies before slaughter gets used. Dirty Jobs has a few episodes about it
“If you don’t see ethical differences between our real faith and other fake religions, your ethical compass is basically non-existent!”
Another evangelical vegan 🙄
You’re on the same level of evangelism, it’s just you’re advocating both for status quo, which is ew, gross, but also for killing animals, which is a bit evil.
Says who?
Evangelical vegans are certainly unpleasant and deeply disturbed individuals. Not sure if I would call them gross though.
If you don’t understand why killing is bad, no amount of “no u” arguments and senseless namecalling will ever hide your deep weirdness.
No, I don’t understand why killing animals for food or clothing is bad. That’s probably because it isn’t.
I know you’re probably not doing it for real, but I will answer as if you’re actually that alien that dropped out of parallel universe where suffering doesn’t exist, and trying to understand our customs.
Killing animals for food and clothing in a world where alternatives exist, is bringing unnecessary suffering in the world. This can happen either because you don’t care about bringing unnecessary suffering, or because you don’t recognise it’s existence. Both are kind of the definition of bad.
some vegans will twist themselves into pretzels to justify crop deaths for the things they consume. or, put another way, vegans justify crop deaths.
I don’t mean ethical in the sense of her choice being good or bad, but in that people intentionally choose to be vegan because of their ethical belief, as opposed to a cultural preference or a medical restriction.
TBC, I’m not a vegan.