3 ms·
You're going to deny that the degree of something isn't relevant to its severity? Seriously?
by danielmims 17y ago
You're going to deny that the degree of something isn't relevant to its severity? Seriously?
- tcskeptic 17y agoI'm going to deny that the number you are talking about means anything at all in context of being evil. If one person eats one chicken per week that is 52 chicken killings a year, I see nothing evil about that. If 300 million people eat 1 chicken per week that is 15.6 billion living creatures killed per year, but it still isn't evil. I don't think you are really talking degree, just scale. In this case doesn't matter, if killing things for food is OK (which I think it is) then lots of people eating killed things for food is also OK. So there are two reasonable points of discussion 1) Is is OK to kill living creatures to eat as food (I think we should, they are tasty) 2) If the answer to 1 is yes then do we also have a moral or ethical obligation surrounding our treatment of these things before we kill and eat them?
- danielmims 17y agoFirst, again again again, we are not just talking about "killing animals for food." We are talking about torturing them for their entire lives and then killing them. Second, you say you think "killing [animals] for food is OK." Can you please at some point contend with the fact that this killing is completely unnecessary? Can you contend with the fact that the "killing" we are talking about also has catastrophic effects for the environment, both in localized ecosystems and in the atmosphere of our planet? You can make simple declarations all day ("Killing things for food is OK"), but that doesn't amount to justification at all.