3 ms·

>> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological pro

>> Do you consider killing animals ethically justifiable right now because their flesh tastes good and is hard to replace in cooking Eating is a biological process. If the modern world goes away right now, you can survive, but you're going to need B12 and that means eggs milk and meat. I would tend to think that in the absence of technology matters of actual ethics would remain constant. Do you think that because technology makes something possible that you should use it to justify your choice as "ethical", and apply it to others?

myrmidon 3y ago
My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
  - psd1 3y ago
    Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.

myrmidon 3y ago

My view on this is this: You either need to farm and kill animals, or you don't. Currently, we absolutely don't, and we arguably never did, because animal products like milk or eggs are nutritionally sufficient and do not require killing the animals. I personally really enjoy meat, but consider eating it unethical.

zer00eyz 3y ago
>> need to farm ... milk ... eggs As an aside, Milk and Honey are the few foods that we eat that dont directly involve death. Milk and eggs being available are arguably products of technology, and farming is technology. There are ethical angles. Problematic farming, would drive you to ethical raised. Sustainability, would drive you to eat less. Technology enables you to make the choice of "I don't eat things with eyes". You eat plants, so the line for living things exists somewhere. Your ability to draw that line in an arbitrary (in the face of your biology) place is a product of technology, not a fundamental truth. It makes it hard for me to take "ethical" as an argument for your dietary choice. Ethics is a step on the path to judgement, to rules and I just dont see the argument holding water. (And im a person who eats little meat and could give it up, you can pry the butter out of my cold dead hands).
- psd1 3y ago
  Dairy implies veal. You can't have milk and butter without either a cull or an expanding herd. There may be a biotech solution, which may bring up new ethical concerns.