4 ms·

Murdering (or being complicit in the factory farming model), and then consuming another living conscious being is on a very different moral plane than remixing

Murdering (or being complicit in the factory farming model), and then consuming another living conscious being is on a very different moral plane than remixing intellectual work. It's hard to imagine the mental gymnastics required to think the two are in the same league.

kixiQu 4y ago
Deciding that "living conscious being" is the category that merits moral status is one framework of justification for veganism – the Western originated-in-the-1970s-one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.sh... I'm not saying that it's wrong, but to act like it should be taken as the default prior without requiring laying out its context is a very narrow view.
trention 4y ago
>It's hard to imagine the mental gymnastics required to think the two are in the same league. It's really not hard. You just have to care more for the harm to the well-being of human artists than for the harm for the well-being of farmed animals. It may surprise some people but speciesism is the default position for the vast majority of the population.
- jerojero 4y ago
  Wait. When you say well being you're aware that killing them is close to the ultimate harm we can inflict on them. What you're saying is that you think intellectual property is more valuable, to you, than the life of other conscious non human beings. I think for most people, this is a stretch.
  - trention 4y ago
    It really isn't. Most people don't consider farming murder and do not care about the well-being of non-cute, non-immediately present animals at all.
biztos 4y ago
Redefining words like “murder” to include killing animals for food requires some pretty impressive mental gymnastics too. But I don’t find either one hard to imagine.
vagrantJin 4y ago
Eating animals is kind of what our species has been doing for millenia. The mental gymnastics are required to rationalize the act of eating meat and murder being the same thing.

kixiQu 4y ago

Deciding that "living conscious being" is the category that merits moral status is one framework of justification for veganism – the Western originated-in-the-1970s-one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.shtml https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/moralstatus_1.sh... I'm not saying that it's wrong, but to act like it should be taken as the default prior without requiring laying out its context is a very narrow view.

trention 4y ago

>It's hard to imagine the mental gymnastics required to think the two are in the same league. It's really not hard. You just have to care more for the harm to the well-being of human artists than for the harm for the well-being of farmed animals. It may surprise some people but speciesism is the default position for the vast majority of the population.

jerojero 4y ago
Wait. When you say well being you're aware that killing them is close to the ultimate harm we can inflict on them. What you're saying is that you think intellectual property is more valuable, to you, than the life of other conscious non human beings. I think for most people, this is a stretch.
- trention 4y ago
  It really isn't. Most people don't consider farming murder and do not care about the well-being of non-cute, non-immediately present animals at all.

biztos 4y ago

Redefining words like “murder” to include killing animals for food requires some pretty impressive mental gymnastics too. But I don’t find either one hard to imagine.

vagrantJin 4y ago

Eating animals is kind of what our species has been doing for millenia. The mental gymnastics are required to rationalize the act of eating meat and murder being the same thing.