4 ms·

If some bird is killed by a crocodile it is not my concern. If I eat a chicken it is.

• cjbprime 10y ago
  Many people have ethics like yours, but these are not consequentialist ethics, which is what the article is discussing. In consequentialism, an act's rightness is determined by the goodness of what happens, not other factors.
  • glibgil 10y ago
    You and the paper miss the mark by not imagining the position that leaving something wild is good
    • schoen 10y ago
      As I said above, I don't think that view is associated with the "ethical consequentialist vegetarianism" questioned here and often defended in academic philosophy. In fact part of the point of the consequentialist idea here is that maybe it doesn't matter who or what was responsible for something (e.g., a human or an ecosystem) in order to decide if the thing itself was good or bad. Although not all consequentialists afford any moral status to animals, I think consequentialists would find it super congenitally difficult to say "oh, but that's OK -- nature did it!".
    • themaninthedark 10y ago
      But what is 'wild'? If I as an animal follow my instincts and hunt a deer is that unacceptable in your eyes?
      • glibgil 10y ago
        Why would a human hunting deer be a problem at all? As long as the numbers are right you should be able to hunt. Meat, as it is consumed by most people, is probably not sustainable. Hunting exists outside that system