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.
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?
Yes
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?
NTT?