Justifying one thing because it's a necessary component of another *unnecessary* thing... what logical fallacy is that?

SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 43 points –
124

You are viewing a single comment

So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn't unethical? I'm not sure what ethical system you're referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it's not needed.

I’m not sure what ethical system you’re referring to that would determine whether something is ethical.

literally, any. pick one.

Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don't need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.

Kicking a dog when you don’t need to is unethical.

but we're not talking about kicking dogs. we're talking about producing food.

No, we're talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn't necessary. Kicking a dog isn't necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.

By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed

that's not true. but even if it were, you don't have a monopoly on what may be considered necessary. a dairy farmer may say he needs to participate in any of the practices you find abhorrent to feed his family, and i wouldn't tell him he's wrong.

4 more...
4 more...