4 ms·
Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded. I don't assign the same amount of moral agency to humans a
by inertiatic 8y ago
Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded.
I don't assign the same amount of moral agency to humans as I do to animals and I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example.
But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass.
Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today.
- lolsal 8y ago> Stating that you're not trying to trick someone doesn't really mean that your question isn't loaded. True, but I try not to have such a pessimistic perspective. > I don't have to have a moral problem with a forest fire to not be happy about it killing a large number of animals, as an example. That's an interesting example, thanks. > But even if I did, a tiger in the jungle for example doesn't really have the ability to graze on grass. Meanwhile, the human being can thrive on a plant based diet, and following one is trivial today. I don't think I would call it trivial. I suppose in the same way that some choose not to assign the same amount of moral agency to animals, I choose not to designate consumption of animals as an immoral thing to do.