• mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    102·
    2 months ago

    if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient

    this is a contradiction in itself.

    It is normal and healthy for people to empathize with the animals they eat, to be concerned about whether or not they are living happy lives and to hope they are slaughtered humanely. However, if it is unethical to harm these animals, then it is more unethical to kill them.

    Killing animals for food is far worse than making them suffer. Of course, it is admirable that people care so deeply about these animals that they take deliberate steps to reduce their suffering (e.g. by purchasing “free-range” eggs or “suffering free” meat). However, because they choose not to acknowledge the right of those same animals to live out their natural lives, and because slaughtering them is a much greater violation than mistreatment, people who eat ‘humane’ meat are laboring under an irreconcilable contradiction.

    from https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat

    • Awooooooga@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 months ago

      I don’t even eat meat and I disagree completely with that lol. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about killing animals for food. There is something wrong and unnatural about abusing the lives of those animals and treating them with no respect.

        • Awooooooga@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 month ago

          I just don’t really think killing animals for food is immoral. It’s natural. Humans have an effect on the environment around them just by living our lives. Our goal should be to minimize that and live in relative harmony with the natural world rather than how we exploit the land today.

          • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            1·
            1 month ago

            Ok but why do you think its bad to abuse these animals aside from killing them? That’s the part I’m curious about. What kind of pain would you consider immoral? Do you count emotional pain such as separating a newborn child from it’s mother for instance?

    • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
      21·
      2 months ago

      The “natural life” of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.

      None of these creatures exist in nature. If they’re going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?

      • mathemachristian [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        3·
        2 months ago

        you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the “purpose” of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that’s your purpose in life.

        Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.

        • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
          11·
          2 months ago

          Your examples are false equivalences from where I stand. Slavery, capitalism…these are human systems. Of course the people inside have their own goals and desires. Much of agriculture is wontonly bleak, but not by definition. People still exist without slavery, it is not the same for a meat chicken. They really shouldn’t exist, and ideally they wouldn’t, but they’re not going away anytime soon.