5 ms·
Couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Do prisoners and slaves exist for their captors' purposes alone? I can understand an argument to the affirmative,
by MisterOctober 8y ago
Couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Do prisoners and slaves exist for their captors' purposes alone?
I can understand an argument to the affirmative, but it is completely contrary to my way of thinking.
To quote Hamlet : "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space"
or Hawking : "In my mind, I am free."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zamfi 8y agoI think you are misunderstanding the parent poster: livestock animals would not exist but for their owners. So, for humanely-raised and nobly-killed animals: the choice (made by humans) is an animal with a benign, perhaps even happy existence, followed by a peaceful death vs. not existing at all. (Obviously not true for factory farms.) It’s definitely not an ironclad argument: children also exist only because of their parents, but (our modern) society does not grant parents the right of life or death over their children at will.
- sytelus 8y agoThis is like saying people brought from Africa for slavery wouldn’t have procreated, produced offsprings and successfully survived if it wasn’t for their necessities supplied by their owners.
- MisterOctober 8y ago^ exactly. To me, the notion is odious that individuals born into exploitative circumstances [be they human or otherwise] forfeit their volition / consciousness as a result of those circumstances. Rousseau : "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
- zamfi 8y agoI have no idea who's down-voting you, but you are absolutely right. To find acceptable the exploitation of animals while finding immoral the exploitation of humans, you must believe that animals differ from humans in some fundamental ways! Comfortable, caring bondage is still bondage, and we should not forget that.