3 ms·
I get what your saying. I think you've set a really low bar for how you decided wether something is good or bad though. For me something doesn't become ethica
by tillom 10y ago
I get what your saying. I think you've set a really low bar for how you decided wether something is good or bad though.
For me something doesn't become ethical when an animal can just about tolerate bad conditions.
I cant give you a hard line for where I decide, but it's not that.
What about if an animal can have some positive experiences of a wild animal (some space) with fewer of the negatives (very painful death). We have given them a better alternative arguably.
- stanfordkid 10y agoThere really isn't a "good" or "bad" ... there is only "nature" ... and it's a beautiful hierarchical food-chain that should be appreciated and understood by all elements within it. Humans are one of the few that have the capacity to fully understand it. Sadly they still do not recognize the inherently hierarchical nature of even human society and this leads both the people at the bottom and top to hate each other. Humans are the only creatures that have somehow attached themselves to this strange idea that controlling their pleasure and pain response (rather than their freedom) is the most important thing in the world. Society and civilization should exist but only to protected freedom-- that doesn't mean that everyone should or can be happy. But rather freedom to compete and continue the threads of nature is what is important. Nature above all else.