3 ms·

The social norm is that generally we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals, right? If I set stray cats on fire for entertainment I can expect a

by brl 17y ago

The social norm is that generally we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals, right? If I set stray cats on fire for entertainment I can expect a visit from the police and/or an angry mob of my neighbors.

techiferous 17y ago
"The social norm is that generally we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals, right?" Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Most people agree with this statement. However, you don't need to eat or wear animals to lead a happy, productive life (e.g., I know someone who has been vegan for over 30 years). So eating meat is optional--it's a choice people make. It's not necessary. As far as the suffering goes, the suffering that occurs in factory farms is the worst imaginable. For example, it's routine for male chicks to be ground alive and for chickens to have their beaks cut off. And more than 99% of livestock is factory farmed. So this is where theory does not meet practice. If people really believed that "we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals" then the majority of the population would be vegetarian. "set stray cats on fire for entertainment" To me this is morally equivalent to eating factory-farmed meat because you enjoy the taste (provided you are aware of the intense suffering of factory farms).
techiferous 17y ago
By the way, my other response doesn't really address what you're saying, so I'll reply again. When I read blintson's comment that "animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all" I took it to mean that he didn't see anything wrong with the cruelty we put animals through for the sake of hunting or eating. If that's the case, then blintson's values are the social norm. If you read it as not caring about animal cruelty in any form (such as abusing pets), then his values fall out of the social norm. I'm not sure which way blintson meant that in his comment.

by brl 17y ago

techiferous 17y ago

"The social norm is that generally we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals, right?" Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Most people agree with this statement. However, you don't need to eat or wear animals to lead a happy, productive life (e.g., I know someone who has been vegan for over 30 years). So eating meat is optional--it's a choice people make. It's not necessary. As far as the suffering goes, the suffering that occurs in factory farms is the worst imaginable. For example, it's routine for male chicks to be ground alive and for chickens to have their beaks cut off. And more than 99% of livestock is factory farmed. So this is where theory does not meet practice. If people really believed that "we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals" then the majority of the population would be vegetarian. "set stray cats on fire for entertainment" To me this is morally equivalent to eating factory-farmed meat because you enjoy the taste (provided you are aware of the intense suffering of factory farms).

techiferous 17y ago

By the way, my other response doesn't really address what you're saying, so I'll reply again. When I read blintson's comment that "animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all" I took it to mean that he didn't see anything wrong with the cruelty we put animals through for the sake of hunting or eating. If that's the case, then blintson's values are the social norm. If you read it as not caring about animal cruelty in any form (such as abusing pets), then his values fall out of the social norm. I'm not sure which way blintson meant that in his comment.