In my opinion, it’s okay to aspire to change antiqued cultural norms that, through a modern lens, we no longer find ethical. By setting the bar so high that it’s effectively “your objections to killing any animals are only valid if you eat no meat at all,” there’s no reasonable approach to reducing meat consumption.
As for myself, I lead by example and eat no meat at all, but that’s not where I began. I first reduced red meat, then became pescatarian and only in my early thirties became fully vegetarian.
Similarly, I believe that identifying a wide range of reasons to justify change can help with taking the first steps to accomplish it, like recognizing dogs as companion animals and for their intelligence, the health, environmental and ecological benefits of reducing intake, and so on.
I don’t believe anybody can specify who exactly formulates cultural norms. The “we” here is used in the abstract.
In this case, there will be a group of people who share a common moral principle.
I can’t help with providing an explanation for why it would be more ethical to eat some animals than others, because my personal principle is that it’s unethical to eat any animal.
it’s okay to aspire to change antiqued cultural norms that, through a modern lens, we no longer find ethical. By setting the bar so high that it’s effectively “your objections to killing any animals are only valid if you eat no meat at all,” there’s no reasonable approach to reducing meat consumption.
You do you. But foisting your religious views on others isn’t ethical either. If you want to view me as a horrible person, because I don’t view eating meat is inherently bad, that’s ok. But, do realize that I don’t agree with your premise and will mentally lump you in the same boat as the Christian nut jobs trying to control other peoples’ bodies.
I haven’t advocated for making you do anything that you don’t want to do, and I most certainly haven’t suggested that you are a horrible person. Wherever this hostility is coming from, I feel like it’s terribly misplaced.
In my opinion, it’s okay to aspire to change antiqued cultural norms that, through a modern lens, we no longer find ethical. By setting the bar so high that it’s effectively “your objections to killing any animals are only valid if you eat no meat at all,” there’s no reasonable approach to reducing meat consumption.
As for myself, I lead by example and eat no meat at all, but that’s not where I began. I first reduced red meat, then became pescatarian and only in my early thirties became fully vegetarian.
Similarly, I believe that identifying a wide range of reasons to justify change can help with taking the first steps to accomplish it, like recognizing dogs as companion animals and for their intelligence, the health, environmental and ecological benefits of reducing intake, and so on.
Who’s this ‘we’? I would like an explanation of why it’s more ethical to eat some animals than others, please.
I don’t believe anybody can specify who exactly formulates cultural norms. The “we” here is used in the abstract.
In this case, there will be a group of people who share a common moral principle.
I can’t help with providing an explanation for why it would be more ethical to eat some animals than others, because my personal principle is that it’s unethical to eat any animal.
Ok but that we group can choose not to eat meat. That’s their choice but they don’t get to force that on others.
You do you. But foisting your religious views on others isn’t ethical either. If you want to view me as a horrible person, because I don’t view eating meat is inherently bad, that’s ok. But, do realize that I don’t agree with your premise and will mentally lump you in the same boat as the Christian nut jobs trying to control other peoples’ bodies.
I haven’t advocated for making you do anything that you don’t want to do, and I most certainly haven’t suggested that you are a horrible person. Wherever this hostility is coming from, I feel like it’s terribly misplaced.
haha what