LogFAQs > #926412112

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicI'm not a vegetarian or vegan but those seem like morally superior options
s0nicfan
08/22/19 3:49:26 PM
#47:


averagejoel posted...
s0nicfan posted...
averagejoel posted...
s0nicfan posted...
shockthemonkey posted...
Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?


I missed this earlier but are you honestly trying to argue that its equally moral to give money to strangers as it is to not if you can afford to do it?

I absolutely think that, between two people with the same financial capacity and all other things completely equal, the person who gives more of his money to strangers is morally better than the person who doesnt.

You could not absolutely plays into this. Its not a choice for survival, its an option taken for pleasure at the expense of the animals who suffer and die.


I'm saying the availability of a choice does not itself imply one choice is moral and the other is immoral.

whether or not it's intentional, you are misconstruing the argument. the idea is that it isn't necessarily immoral to commit an immoral act if someone is forced into the act.


I'm not misconstruing the argument. I'm asking the person to elaborate. "You could choose not to" is not itself an argument for or against something being moral. If the argument is one of suffering, then they should again be okay with eating meat if the death is painless or if the creature was hunted, and then we're back to the issue of HOW the meat is gathered and not whether eating meat is immoral.

Say we invent a way that 100% kills an animal instantly without pain. Does this make it okay to eat meat? Or does the issue then become "but they were raised to be killed", but if that's the argument then you'll have to explain to me what value the life of a "wild" chicken has that is being stolen from it if it could be given a painless life and a swift death.

you are aware that that's not the only argument for meat eating being immoral, right?


Then make the others. So far all I've seen in this topic is "its cruel because it induces suffering" and "it contributes to global warming".
---
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1