3 ms·
How about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?
by queercode 7y ago
How about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?
- mijamo 7y agoUnethical for whom? It's not like ethics is universal.
- queercode 7y agoI'd say unethical for everyone. This isn't even just an "animal rights" debate. It's also a debate about the impact that eating meat has on the environment. There's way too many "eat less meat" articles to list, but here's one: https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/ https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/ Sure, it's a bit of a jump from "eat less meat" to "eat no meat", but the trend is there.
- odessacubbage 7y agohow about instead of eat less meat, eat less shitty meat and cook more? in all likelihood, you'll save money and feel better.
- moocow157 7y agoOf course it is. If you mean by this to endorse moral relativism, then there is no further ethical conversation that can be had on this whatsoever.
- F-0X 7y agoBecause it is not objectively unethical.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y agoThere is nothing unethical about eating meat. Now, the factory farming methods you see and the treatment of the animals being raised for meat, is definitely unethical.
- moocow157 7y agoYes, it's clearly unethical to torture rights-bearing beings but not to kill them. Come on.