3 ms·

> The majority of humans do not think it is immoral in principle to kill and eat an animal This is wrong, the majority of humans may think that way because the

> The majority of humans do not think it is immoral in principle to kill and eat an animal This is wrong, the majority of humans may think that way because they don't have to kill any animal personally, they are disconnected from the "killing" part of the whole equation. Let's see how many people eat and kill animals (i.e. hunting) once we remove meat factories. Another counterargument is: pets. Somehow all meat eaters gasp on the idea of eating their pet, so they are not morally okay to eat an animal (as you claimed). > Or is less suffering better? Ask yourself, how would you like to die? After listening to music you love? getting massages? OR being hurled up a thousand other humans in a small room? The fact is you are dying, your neck will be cut off, and it doesn't matter what you did before it, how is listening to peaceful music before dying less of a suffering? It is like saying that concentration camps should have been more "humane", they should have cared more for prisoners before killing them to reduce their suffering. Death matters the most for any living creature, all of us (humans + animals) are primed to avoid it. So, we need to take a path where we are reducing overall deaths, not a path where we are reducing pre-death suffering. What you can say is, "I don't care about suffering; I just need meat." That would be a more logically correct statement than claiming that you care about reducing their suffering.

vasco 2y ago
> Another counterargument is: pets. Somehow all meat eaters gasp on the idea of eating their pet, so they are not morally okay to eat an animal (as you claimed). You seem to think humans are rational if-this-then-that machines but we're perfectly irrational enough to hold two dissenting views at the same time very closely. It doesn't prove much that people like their pets, serial killers also like their own families.
- pulkitsh1234 2y ago
  Should we move towards irrationality or rationality? If being rational is marginally better we should move towards that. We want less serial killers in the society. So pointing out the fact about pets is to force meat eaters to consider their irrationality face to face. We have done this throughout our evolution. Some people notice the irrational things in our behavior and try to reason with other humans why doing these irrational things is wrong and should be stopped (slavery, racism, etc). That's what I am doing, and anyone should do. Just accepting the fact that humans are irrational is just accepting the status quo.
  - vasco 2y ago
    I hope to have the discernment to tell the difference between the irrational things I cannot change from the ones I can, and I don't think I'm changing this, so I accept it.
    - gverrilla 2y ago
      Few people believed slavery, a mechanism that stood for millennia, would end. Yet..
      - vasco 2y ago
        I also think eventually we won't eat animals, just not in my lifetime. Practicality doesn't need to be blind to morality and might also be wrong (it might be faster than I think).
GiorgioG 2y ago
If I had to kill animals to eat meat, I would have zero problem doing so. You’re free to make your own choices, but you’re not going to change anyone’s stance on eating meat with your arguments. Get off your high horse.
- pulkitsh1234 2y ago
  the key word is "had". I would eat any animal any day if I "had" to and had no other food source.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - GiorgioG 2y ago
    No I mean I would have no problem killing an animal if I was unable to buy meat at a grocery store.
erikerikson 2y ago
My pet chickens and ducks had happy, idyllic, safe lives until I humanely slaughtered, butchered, and ate them. I have also slaughtered and eaten lamb and fish. I care about suffering so I minimize it, maximize well being, and eat meat because it tastes delicious and is calorically and nutritionally dense. I also eat more vegetables than the average person, many of which come out of the garden I work. I have been afforded a much less idyllic life than is sustainable but I still hope for a quick, inexpensive death for myself.
em-bee 2y ago
the majority of humans may think that way because they don't have to kill any animal personally, they are disconnected from the "killing" part of the whole equation. until a century or two ago this was simply not true. everyone grew up with animals around them and for sure watched them being slaughtered. people being bothered by that have always been the exception.

vasco 2y ago

> Another counterargument is: pets. Somehow all meat eaters gasp on the idea of eating their pet, so they are not morally okay to eat an animal (as you claimed). You seem to think humans are rational if-this-then-that machines but we're perfectly irrational enough to hold two dissenting views at the same time very closely. It doesn't prove much that people like their pets, serial killers also like their own families.

pulkitsh1234 2y ago
Should we move towards irrationality or rationality? If being rational is marginally better we should move towards that. We want less serial killers in the society. So pointing out the fact about pets is to force meat eaters to consider their irrationality face to face. We have done this throughout our evolution. Some people notice the irrational things in our behavior and try to reason with other humans why doing these irrational things is wrong and should be stopped (slavery, racism, etc). That's what I am doing, and anyone should do. Just accepting the fact that humans are irrational is just accepting the status quo.
- vasco 2y ago
  I hope to have the discernment to tell the difference between the irrational things I cannot change from the ones I can, and I don't think I'm changing this, so I accept it.
  - gverrilla 2y ago
    Few people believed slavery, a mechanism that stood for millennia, would end. Yet..
    - vasco 2y ago
      I also think eventually we won't eat animals, just not in my lifetime. Practicality doesn't need to be blind to morality and might also be wrong (it might be faster than I think).

GiorgioG 2y ago

If I had to kill animals to eat meat, I would have zero problem doing so. You’re free to make your own choices, but you’re not going to change anyone’s stance on eating meat with your arguments. Get off your high horse.

pulkitsh1234 2y ago
the key word is "had". I would eat any animal any day if I "had" to and had no other food source.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- GiorgioG 2y ago
  No I mean I would have no problem killing an animal if I was unable to buy meat at a grocery store.

erikerikson 2y ago

My pet chickens and ducks had happy, idyllic, safe lives until I humanely slaughtered, butchered, and ate them. I have also slaughtered and eaten lamb and fish. I care about suffering so I minimize it, maximize well being, and eat meat because it tastes delicious and is calorically and nutritionally dense. I also eat more vegetables than the average person, many of which come out of the garden I work. I have been afforded a much less idyllic life than is sustainable but I still hope for a quick, inexpensive death for myself.

em-bee 2y ago

the majority of humans may think that way because they don't have to kill any animal personally, they are disconnected from the "killing" part of the whole equation. until a century or two ago this was simply not true. everyone grew up with animals around them and for sure watched them being slaughtered. people being bothered by that have always been the exception.