3 ms·
> 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)
by 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 agoShould 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 agoI 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.