this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
611 points (96.2% liked)
memes
9680 readers
2517 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the crux of the argument that they might feel pain is not that it is wrong, but that it is inevitable, so it cannot be wrong
I had a stroke while reading this. Can you clarify what you meant?
when somebody raises the objection that plants feel pain, it's not an appeal to hypocrisy. it's a statement of fact whether we can prove it or not. and it's the premise of a larger argument. that argument goes
pain is an inevitable facet of food production
food production is a moral good
an inevitable facet of food production cannot make food production bad
therefore
food production remains a moral good
your rebuttal was targeted at defending against the accusation of hypocrisy, but the devastating bit has nothing to do with the hypocrisy.
Pain might be an inevitable facet of food production (crop deaths). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate as much pain as we reasonably can.
Pain is an inevitable facet of surgery
Surgery is a moral good
an inevitable facet of surgery cannot make surgey bad
surgery remains a moral good
The fact that pain is inevitable to surgery doesn't mean we should stop giving patients anesthesia and pain medication.
there is an obvious case for easing the pain of humans, but not so much for our food.
So it just loops back to speciesism then? You don't care about the pain animals face, only humans?
as kant said, cruelty is bad. you ought not kick a dog, for instance, but there is no contradiction in animal agriculture itself. if some operations are acting cruelly, we should admonish them. otherwise, tehre is no reason to believe non-human animals can participate in an ethical society, so there is no reason to include them in our ethical systems.
But we do. You mentioned how you ought not to kick a dog, for instance. The difference is that we treat some animals as companions while treating others as resources for exploitation. If you truly believe that there is no reason to be ethical to animals, why not kick that dog? Or maybe boil it alive?
again, kant discourages cruelty as a practice toward non-human animals, as it may lead to practicing cruelty toward people. that's it. it's not including them in our morality.
Okay, then why is animal agriculture not a bad thing? It's highly violent which can lead to violence against people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton
practicing cruelty is bad, but animal agriculture is not cruelty in and of itself. if a particular operation is acting cruelly, they should be admonished.
I would argue that animal agriculture is cruelty in and of itself. It's forcing animals into small cages, forcibly impregnating them, stealing their babies, cutting off their tails, and then painfully murdering them. It's a cruel operation
that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I can't make you see the cruelty. That's something that every person needs to see on their own.
I disagree that agriculture is inherently cruel.
And that's not something I'll be able to change your mind on. You can watch some documentaries such as Dominion if you are interested. Just be warned, it's of course very violent (as animal agriculture inherently is)
I've seen dominion. it's propaganda designed to inflict trauma, not a a sober analysis of humanitarian slaughter laws and practices.
There is no humane slaughter. That's the point. Also watching it was your own choice. It's designed to make the viewer uncomfortable.
yea. it uses well-known horror film techniques to induce trauma. sudden loud sounds, long sustained shots from awkward angles, long periods of loud sounds. it's not a documentary, it's a lesson on abusing audiences.
Do you get trauma whenever you watch a horror movie?
like sleeplessness, nightmares, vomiting/nausea? sometimes.