it's not clear that animal suffering is a negative.
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn't do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.
Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn't matter, I'm all ears.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering ... is good/doesn’t matter
sure. battlefield amputations cause suffering. sometimes it saves a life. it's good.
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun?
no. these are cruel. practicing cruelty toward animals may create a habit, and end with practicing cruelty toward people, which would be immoral. it is best not to practice cruelty at all.
Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel. It is efficient. By your logic, this cruelty is negative. It sounds like we are very close to agreeing, frankly
Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel.
i disagree.
Please show me that factory farming is overwhelmingly not cruel
cruelty would be inflicting pain for its own sake. in so-called factory farming, the pain is still only incidental. that is, if it were possible to create the same outputs with no additional inputs, and that process had no pain, there is no reason why a factory farming operation would prefer the painful process. so it is not cruel, it is only indifferent.
So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn't matter? It's awfully convenient that we don't have to care about cruelty when it's inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn't you want that?
If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
cruelty is intentional. think of battlefield amputation: it hurts, but the pain isn't the point. the pain is only incidental.
The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don't care doesn't mean these farms can exist outside morality.
Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.
You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous
I'm comparing incidental pain to incidental pain. it's an apt analogy.
We have the capacity to reduce the suffering.
how?
Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.
I don't farm any meat. if you do, I suppose that's something that you can change
Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don't slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn't mean they are free from blood.
You have agency over your choices.
sure, but my choices don't determine industry practices
If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
you can see this is just an appeal to emotion, right?
I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine -- amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it's inherent.
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it is inherent.
not quite but very close. the suffering is not cruelty because it is inherent, and suffering alone does not change the morality.
To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality
This is a semantic argument that ignores reality
no, it's not. but this is a thought terminating cliche
it's not clear that animal suffering is a negative.
Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn't do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.
Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.
If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn't matter, I'm all ears.
sure. battlefield amputations cause suffering. sometimes it saves a life. it's good.
no. these are cruel. practicing cruelty toward animals may create a habit, and end with practicing cruelty toward people, which would be immoral. it is best not to practice cruelty at all.
Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel. It is efficient. By your logic, this cruelty is negative. It sounds like we are very close to agreeing, frankly
i disagree.
Please show me that factory farming is overwhelmingly not cruel
cruelty would be inflicting pain for its own sake. in so-called factory farming, the pain is still only incidental. that is, if it were possible to create the same outputs with no additional inputs, and that process had no pain, there is no reason why a factory farming operation would prefer the painful process. so it is not cruel, it is only indifferent.
So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn't matter? It's awfully convenient that we don't have to care about cruelty when it's inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn't you want that?
If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
cruelty is intentional. think of battlefield amputation: it hurts, but the pain isn't the point. the pain is only incidental.
The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don't care doesn't mean these farms can exist outside morality.
Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.
You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous
I'm comparing incidental pain to incidental pain. it's an apt analogy.
how?
Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.
I don't farm any meat. if you do, I suppose that's something that you can change
Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don't slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn't mean they are free from blood.
sure, but my choices don't determine industry practices
you can see this is just an appeal to emotion, right?
I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?
By your logic, dog meat farms are fine -- amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it's inherent.
not quite but very close. the suffering is not cruelty because it is inherent, and suffering alone does not change the morality.
To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality
no, it's not. but this is a thought terminating cliche
what is the bar for necessity? you are introducing an ambiguity here.
"innocent" here is an appeal to emotion, since we don't regard non-human animals as moral agents.