Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Is your belief based on an animal’s capacity for consciousness? If so do you think all animals, regardless of their intelligence, deserve the right to not be eaten? Where would you draw the line?
Hi there, good question. For me there’s no morals tied to the level of consciousness. That allows for cherry picking.
I apply the very simple principe “don’t do to other living beings what you would not want to be done to you”.
Ok but plants are also living beings so you should not eat them by your rule.
This is a common philosophical counter question I hear. While completely valid in its core, it distracts from the real problem. Have you considered the fact that we need food to survive? I’d rather choose the food (based on current research that plants don’t feel pain as animala do) that seems to cause the least harm.
Meat or animal products of any kind don’t fulfill that criterium.
Then we have the fact that it contributes negatively to our planet and the production takes a huge toll on both plants AND humans alike. It simply isn’t efficient in any way.
So this really isn’t an argument worth discussing.
If you consider all this, there’s really only one logical choice based on the morals we decide on as a society. Which is currently seriously hypocritical.
I’m not making a larger claim here, I’m just asking the vegetarians to explain the logic of their belief.
It sounds like now you’re saying that you want to reduce pain rather than the killing of intelligent/conscious life.
In that case would you be OK with slaughterhouses if they treated the animals humanely and killed them as quickly as possible before they could feel significant pain?
No, I am against all killing and intentionally inflicting of pain. I don’t mind you trying to poke holes in (my) logics at all by the way. Nothing in life is foolproof, otherwise philosophy wouldn’t exist.
Plants don’t have any consciousness at all.
Did you read the comment I replied to?
They’re talking about level of consciousness when it’s established that the entity in question has any consciousness at all. It doesn’t mean considering those with no consciousness, like plants or rocks. (I don’t agree with it though, levels are worth considering.)
Let’s look at this from the other direction.
Would you kill and eat a human? How about a monkey or dog? Where do you draw the line for your acceptance of murder?
No I wouldn’t. But I would kill and eat an insect, fish, or bird.