3 ms·
How do you measure that? I mean, both intelligence, emotions, etc. I think your morals are so subjective that will not matter. You should eat animals based on m
by meerita 5y ago
How do you measure that? I mean, both intelligence, emotions, etc. I think your morals are so subjective that will not matter. You should eat animals based on more objective points, like nutritional factor, availability, rather than emotional arguments.
- kuhewa 5y agoHow to measure.. capacity to suffer or intelligence? Both are a active fields of research, the former in the neurobiology, animal welfare, ethology space. I should add though, I think the science on the nature of sentience and suffering is not quite at a point to support some of the recent proclaimations made on the subject. There's enough there though that I reckon the precautionary principle is defensible though.
- kuhewa 5y agoAlso, to be fair to the people arguing for reducing suffering, doing so can be defended in a entirely rational ethical framework, it need not be an emotional argument. I'm just not sure within that framework how defensible it is to assume intelligence and potential capacity to suffer are correlated for many of the 'higher' animals we eat.