• naught@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    We have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn’t matter, I’m all ears.

          “innocent” here is an appeal to emotion, since we don’t regard non-human animals as moral agents.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • naught@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            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

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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.

                  • naught@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    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?

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.