4 ms·

Necessity is a flimsy justification. You could argue eating a little bit of meat is necessary for nutrition and survival. I wouldn't agree, especially if you li

Necessity is a flimsy justification. You could argue eating a little bit of meat is necessary for nutrition and survival. I wouldn't agree, especially if you live in a technically advanced nation, but you could argue it. What you can't really argue is that each American could possibly need to eat 200 chickens every year, or that the incredibly cruelty of their environments are warranted. And if you stop elevating human sentience over everyone else for (??) reasons, it does become pretty black and white. Some people are still in the "recognizing it's an attrocity but still participating" stage, others are in the "actively (poorly) rationalizing the attrocity" stage, and many are in the "not yet realizing it's an attrocity" stage. Really only the people in the last one should get a pass, morally speaking.

infecto 1y ago
You’re not describing moral clarity, you’re describing moral exceptionalism. You draw a clean line and then declare everyone outside it as ignorant, complicit, or cowardly. That’s not ethics, that’s dogma. Most people aren’t “rationalizing atrocities”, they’re living in the real world, where values collide with circumstance, biology, and culture. The “enlightened” always assume their version of truth is the final one, and they always seem to have the luxury to do so. That’s not moral progress, it’s just another flavor of certainty, polished by privilege and detached from the messiness of life. I am not justifying anything beyond refuting the clear lines you draw in your version of enlightenment.