• McKee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.

    But let’s entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you’re raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.

    Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I didn’t say preservation of all life was the most important factor. I said almost all life eats other life.

      There’s a big difference between kicking a dog and eating food.

      • McKee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’ve clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.

        There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.

        Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing and eating them.At least I know I’d prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But what about a choice between being kicked and never being born? Most animals that are eaten are bred to be eaten. They would not exist if people weren’t going to eat them.

          • McKee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think when going this route it helps to view it with an analogy as it makes it more intuitive to understand why I don’t find this an appealing view.

            If I were to to adopt this view point, this would mean I would be also ok with breeding humans for any given purpose (let’s say Slavery as it’s an easy one) as I could justify it saying: “It’s better for them as they would have never existed otherwise”. However I think intuitively most people would agree that would still not make it ok and that’s why I would not consider it ok for animals. Because fundamentally we’re still violating - I think - fundamental rights. (e.g. most negative rights like right not to be killed)

            P.S.: I have a rights based approach on how we should interact with animals and not a weéfarost one as I think it leads to these kinds of issues where you end up justifying terrible things.