3 ms·
That's too simplistic, since it is in fact very common to be concerned about animal welfare even among people who do eat meat.
by svara 17d ago
That's too simplistic, since it is in fact very common to be concerned about animal welfare even among people who do eat meat.
- fl4regun 17d agoAnd most people wouldn't eat cats, but would eat some of pig, cattle, chicken, what's the difference between those exactly? My point is consciousness is not it, if it were, we (as in a majority) would still eat cats and dogs, or we wouldn't eat any animals. But we clearly have a way of picking and choosing which is OK and which isn't. And in both cases we generally don't give them the same moral consideration we give to people, conscioussness aside. There is something OTHER than consciousness which is important to us.
- svara 17d agoIn animal welfare laws the principle is typically the capacity for suffering. The argument goes that livestock have a capacity for suffering, but killing them for meat without causing them suffering is ethical. You can disagree with the position, or with its implementation in practice, but it's a consistent position in principle.