• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago
    1. Why stoop to their level? We’re claiming to be better than a killer
    2. No take backs. One mistake is too many mistakes
    3. It’s actually cheaper to keep them alive
    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      If you hate killing so much, you must be vegan, right? Or do you kill some non-human animals but not other non-human animals?

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            What? I care about human lives, I don’t really care about the lives of other animals

            • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Since human beings are also just animals, I assume you have some non-arbitrary reason for favoring one species over another?

              Keep in mind that speciation is technically arbitrary, and that we can just as easily decide that you and I are not the same species. Go ahead, explain to me why I’m entitled to farm and eat you. I can’t wait to hear this.

                • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  “Murder” is an illegal killing. I don’t oppose murder; I oppose immoral killing. That’s different.

                  If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

                  An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

                  What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species? Moral philosophers consider this question fairly settled, so let me know if you have some novel insights.

                  • aidan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

                    And that is where you will find your answer, I have a personal intuition both about what lives I value- I don’t believe all pointless killing is bad, regardless of life form, I don’t care if someone pulls up the plants in their yard because they feel like it. And you clearly value some life less than human life given that you eat to exist.

                    An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

                    What? You understand an intuitive belief can exist for all of those things right?

                    What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species?

                    Pretty obvious, I care about the lives of some species and not others. (Do you take antibiotics?). It is based on some framework, that is ultimately based on intuition as well.