I’m a meat eater, but your axioms are vegan. Fundamentally you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. You cannot have milk without impregnating and taking the babies away from heifers. You cannot manage a herd/flock without culling animals in general. Animal husbandry explicitly denies the rights you ascribe to animals. As I said, though, I do not ascribe those rights to them.
If you believe animals have a fundamental right to life, you logically must be vegan. Full stop. I believe in preventing suffering of animals, but I don’t believe they have a fundamental right to life.
Edit: I want to give a side example of milk production without killing unproductive animals/males. In India, since BJP vigilantes will attack farmers transporting animals to slaughter, farmers instead abandon their cows, which usually die from dehydration or disease and sometimes wander the streets of the cities. There are consequently way more stay bulls attacking people at random as well. I honestly think that practice is worse than killing the cattle.
Surely you realize that you have constructed a logical argument around the conclusion that you wished to make? You can make life choices that best align with your principles and do your part to make a difference.
With reducing animal suffering, there’s is veganism on one end of the scale. It seems that you lean somewhere towards the opposite end by making no attempt to resolve this whatsoever. Vegetarianism and pescatarianism exist somewhere in the middle.
I don’t really understand. It’s not a position I hold so it’s not a conclusion I wish to make. If you believe killing animals for meat is a violation of a fundamental right, it’s also a violation of that right to use other animal products.
I find endorsement for more restrictive diets for environmental or utilitarian(reduce animal suffering) reasons to be fine. If, however, you believe that eating meat is murder because animals have a right to live, it’s disingenuous not to be vegan.
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
Just because they’re incapable of being moral agents, i.e. capable of understanding why murder is wrong, doesn’t make it OK to murder them. A toddler would happily push you off a cliff, but that doesn’t give you the right to push toddlers off cliffs.
I agree in part: you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. That’s why factory farming of eggs should not exist. There’s a huge difference between someone having a few hens and roosters that happily live on their farm and a factory farming operation. One is providing a safe home for animals and receiving food in return; the other is exploitation.
What I’m saying is, even on a small farm, you need to cull male chicks and unproductive hens to feed yourself, not even considering feeding other people. That’s how it’s always worked since the domestication of the chicken.
Most small farmers buy chicks that are already sexed for this reason.
I’m a meat eater, but your axioms are vegan. Fundamentally you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. You cannot have milk without impregnating and taking the babies away from heifers. You cannot manage a herd/flock without culling animals in general. Animal husbandry explicitly denies the rights you ascribe to animals. As I said, though, I do not ascribe those rights to them.
No need to be vegan to acknowledge that animals are thinking and feeling beings who deserve rights.
Yours is the take of a person without empathy or conscience.
If you believe animals have a fundamental right to life, you logically must be vegan. Full stop. I believe in preventing suffering of animals, but I don’t believe they have a fundamental right to life.
Edit: I want to give a side example of milk production without killing unproductive animals/males. In India, since BJP vigilantes will attack farmers transporting animals to slaughter, farmers instead abandon their cows, which usually die from dehydration or disease and sometimes wander the streets of the cities. There are consequently way more stay bulls attacking people at random as well. I honestly think that practice is worse than killing the cattle.
Surely you realize that you have constructed a logical argument around the conclusion that you wished to make? You can make life choices that best align with your principles and do your part to make a difference.
With reducing animal suffering, there’s is veganism on one end of the scale. It seems that you lean somewhere towards the opposite end by making no attempt to resolve this whatsoever. Vegetarianism and pescatarianism exist somewhere in the middle.
I don’t really understand. It’s not a position I hold so it’s not a conclusion I wish to make. If you believe killing animals for meat is a violation of a fundamental right, it’s also a violation of that right to use other animal products.
I find endorsement for more restrictive diets for environmental or utilitarian(reduce animal suffering) reasons to be fine. If, however, you believe that eating meat is murder because animals have a right to live, it’s disingenuous not to be vegan.
what rights do you think animals deserve?
Forget rights.
What ethical foundation permits someone to kill animals when they don’t need to?
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
Something being common doesn’t mean it’s moral.
i think it’s amoral, actually. and a phenomenon being so ubiquitous is a good indicator of amorality, even if it is not a guarantee.
edit: do you have an argument that killing non-human animals is not moral?
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
did you mean immoral here?
The right to life and freedom from harm.
do you think they would be willing to recognize that right for others? they certainly don’t act that way, now.
Just because they’re incapable of being moral agents, i.e. capable of understanding why murder is wrong, doesn’t make it OK to murder them. A toddler would happily push you off a cliff, but that doesn’t give you the right to push toddlers off cliffs.
right, but the thing that makes it wrong to push a toddler off a cliff may not apply to non-human animals.
Like what? What criteria would allow for toddlers to be given moral consideration that would exclude animals?
level with me: is this NTT?
I agree in part: you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. That’s why factory farming of eggs should not exist. There’s a huge difference between someone having a few hens and roosters that happily live on their farm and a factory farming operation. One is providing a safe home for animals and receiving food in return; the other is exploitation.
What I’m saying is, even on a small farm, you need to cull male chicks and unproductive hens to feed yourself, not even considering feeding other people. That’s how it’s always worked since the domestication of the chicken.
Most small farmers buy chicks that are already sexed for this reason.
Removed by mod
This guy is saying he doesn’t believe animals have rights and people are agreeing with him?
Not what I said.
it’s wild to see. it’s easy to forget that people are still actually thinking this way.