2 ms·
Thank you for this. Moral absolutism with respect to killing animals for meat doesn't advance the conversation; it just gives vegans a way to feel superior. Y
by redblacktree 14y ago
Thank you for this. Moral absolutism with respect to killing animals for meat doesn't advance the conversation; it just gives vegans a way to feel superior. You seem to understand that what matters (to many people) is the quality of life for the living animal.
A note to all hard-line vegans: If you want to do something to improve the welfare of the animals we raise for meat, engage people in discussions of humane farming practices w.r.t. livestock. Most meat-eaters you talk to aren't ready to give it up. So ask yourself: Would you rather live in a world of factory farms, or a world where animals are raised and slaughtered in the most humane way we can manage? Give up on the idea that you'll convert everyone you meet to a vegan, and you can still do a lot of good in this world. When you take hard-line stances like the poster above, you alienate your meat-eating audience and end the conversation.
- eltondegeneres 14y agoEnding chattel slavery probably didn't seem that feasible to abolitionists in 1820s United States. That doesn't mean they would have gained anything by compromising though. Advocating for welfare reforms rather than abolition sends mixed messages and suggests that there is a tolerable level of (to put it bluntly) exploitation.
- redblacktree 14y agoI guess we'll be forced to stick with the status quo, then. Politics requires compromise. Not everyone's moral yardstick is the same as yours. I don't think you would find a great many people who would think that the slave analogy is appropriate, so the only option I have left is to exclude you from the conversation. You're in a very small minority when you equate the rights of animals to the rights of a human.