3 ms·
And not because of environmental concerns. But moral concerns. Something that is flagrantly immoral would be opposed regardless of environmental questions. Tha
by nwah1 8y ago
And not because of environmental concerns. But moral concerns. Something that is flagrantly immoral would be opposed regardless of environmental questions.
That is important to note because it is not a simple question whether meat is net positive or net negative for the environment. It isn't even clear what it means if something is net positive for the environment.
This is a moral issue, not an eco issue.
- meowface 8y agoI completely agree. The primary reason to not eat meat is that it's inherently unethical (factory farm or not). But a lot of people don't feel that way, so any argument that will persuade them to eat less (or no) meat works in my book.
- nwah1 8y agoI understand that view too, but insincere arguments have some drawbacks too. I do know some people who became disillusioned after hearing bad motivated reasoning on that, and on dubious health claims. My current thinking is that both the eco and health questions are extremely complex. The moral issue, however, is simple.
- guhidalg 8y agoSigh... please explain why it’s immoral to consume other organisms?
- nwah1 8y agoThe eating itself is neutral. It is immoral to pay people to raise other organisms in confinement and later slaughter them.
- meowface 8y agoIt's immoral to kill a conscious and sentient life form for luxury, recreation, or other purposes that aren't absolutely vital to immediate survival. Eating the result is generally encouraging the killing. Of course that doesn't apply to eating an organism that died through other means, or eating synthetic meat.