I don’t need a reason, neither animals nor fetuses are sapient and Idgaf about them.
I do think we should reduce our meat consumption, but that is only so that we don’t overexploit the environment and cause catastrophe, and so that we can eventually establish council communism and redistribute resources more evenly between the proletariat, so we may all benefit from nature’s spoils rather than the inherent inequity of the owner-worker system we have now.
Nah they’re pretty sapient and killing babies, unless it’s like baby Hitler doesn’t really serve any purpose (human pleasure is happiness, and maximisation of happiness is purpose).
I take it you’re anti-abortion too then? Bloody Americanisms m8
Sapience is about applying wisdom, knowledge, intelligence. Babies are not sapient. Did you mean sentient?
killing babies, unless it’s like baby Hitler doesn’t really serve any purpose (human pleasure is happiness, and maximisation of happiness is purpose)
And yet if someone’s only source of happiness in life was killing babies, I am sure you would be against that.
I take it you’re anti-abortion too then?
Abortion rights only relate tangentially to sapience and sentience. Even if the lump of cells inside a womb was sentient and sapient I would still be pro-choice, since abortion is about bodily autonomy.
But think about why you would assume I am against abortion rights. Did that maybe make it easier to dismiss my entire point?
Abortion rights only relate tangentially to sapience and sentience. Even if the lump of cells inside a womb was sentient and sapient I would still be pro-choice, since abortion is about bodily autonomy.
But do you not see the hypocrisy? Because then I could say it’s my bodily autonomy to digest animals en masse.
I’m pro-abortion obviously and bodily autonomy but your reasoning for it is flawed because in the end you are just arbitrarily choosing the body of one living being over another, your entire logic is easily shattered by countering with “well what about the bodily autonomy of the baby?”
I on the other hand thought about this and what I concluded with is that I don’t really give a shit if some babies are “killed”, it is unavoidable, the reproductive process wasn’t designed to be ethical - it was designed to be efficient and best we can do is just try to patch over the injustices of it until we can outsource reproduction to the machines.
The reason I bring all this up is because following your logic on animal rights - treating all life as sacred in a sort of idealistic black and white (dare I say religious) way that has little to do with tbe world we live in is exactly the same logic that anti-abortionists use (or pretend to use) to attack abortion rights.
It wasn’t to discredit you, it’s just to demonstrate how your logic is flawed.
My reasoning then is that: If killing some babies is okay to maximize happiness/minimize suffering on the whole for women, it is also okay to kill and eat animals to maximize happiness/minimize suffering for humanity in general.
Hence I genuinely believe both abortion and meat consumption are okay from my perspective - because I just think that ultimately we’re justified in both practices in the trade off of happiness and suffering on the societal scale despite the fact they involve the negative act of killing things that may or may not be lumps of cells or sentient/sapient.
Likewise I also believe killing in (legitimate) self-defense is justified as well and sometimes war is a good thing (e.g. Ukraine defending itself as opposed to surrender, even if it gets more people killed)
And yet if someone’s only source of happiness in life was killing babies, I am sure you would be against that.
You’re attempting to view this through an individualist happiness lens, I am talking about the societal whole, what you described would cause way more people suffering than happiness.
EDIT: I should add that there’s plenty of reasons to still consume less meat and even more to invest in lab made meat but these aren’t emotional arguments about the sanctity of life but material ones and they concern distribution of natural resources not only to not only the proletariat of today but of the future also (sustainability)
I don’t need a reason, neither animals nor fetuses are sapient and Idgaf about them.
I do think we should reduce our meat consumption, but that is only so that we don’t overexploit the environment and cause catastrophe, and so that we can eventually establish council communism and redistribute resources more evenly between the proletariat, so we may all benefit from nature’s spoils rather than the inherent inequity of the owner-worker system we have now.
Babies and small children aren’t sapient either. So up to what age of a child would you say it is morally ok to cut their throat?
Nah they’re pretty sapient and killing babies, unless it’s like baby Hitler doesn’t really serve any purpose (human pleasure is happiness, and maximisation of happiness is purpose).
I take it you’re anti-abortion too then? Bloody Americanisms m8
Sapience is about applying wisdom, knowledge, intelligence. Babies are not sapient. Did you mean sentient?
And yet if someone’s only source of happiness in life was killing babies, I am sure you would be against that.
Abortion rights only relate tangentially to sapience and sentience. Even if the lump of cells inside a womb was sentient and sapient I would still be pro-choice, since abortion is about bodily autonomy. But think about why you would assume I am against abortion rights. Did that maybe make it easier to dismiss my entire point?
But do you not see the hypocrisy? Because then I could say it’s my bodily autonomy to digest animals en masse.
I’m pro-abortion obviously and bodily autonomy but your reasoning for it is flawed because in the end you are just arbitrarily choosing the body of one living being over another, your entire logic is easily shattered by countering with “well what about the bodily autonomy of the baby?”
I on the other hand thought about this and what I concluded with is that I don’t really give a shit if some babies are “killed”, it is unavoidable, the reproductive process wasn’t designed to be ethical - it was designed to be efficient and best we can do is just try to patch over the injustices of it until we can outsource reproduction to the machines.
The reason I bring all this up is because following your logic on animal rights - treating all life as sacred in a sort of idealistic black and white (dare I say religious) way that has little to do with tbe world we live in is exactly the same logic that anti-abortionists use (or pretend to use) to attack abortion rights.
It wasn’t to discredit you, it’s just to demonstrate how your logic is flawed.
My reasoning then is that: If killing some babies is okay to maximize happiness/minimize suffering on the whole for women, it is also okay to kill and eat animals to maximize happiness/minimize suffering for humanity in general.
Hence I genuinely believe both abortion and meat consumption are okay from my perspective - because I just think that ultimately we’re justified in both practices in the trade off of happiness and suffering on the societal scale despite the fact they involve the negative act of killing things that may or may not be lumps of cells or sentient/sapient.
Likewise I also believe killing in (legitimate) self-defense is justified as well and sometimes war is a good thing (e.g. Ukraine defending itself as opposed to surrender, even if it gets more people killed)
You’re attempting to view this through an individualist happiness lens, I am talking about the societal whole, what you described would cause way more people suffering than happiness.
EDIT: I should add that there’s plenty of reasons to still consume less meat and even more to invest in lab made meat but these aren’t emotional arguments about the sanctity of life but material ones and they concern distribution of natural resources not only to not only the proletariat of today but of the future also (sustainability)