You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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?
why not kick that dog?
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.
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.
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