Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.
But let’s entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you’re raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.
Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.
You’ve clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.
There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.
Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing it and eating it. At least I know I’d prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.
But what about a choice between being kicked and never being born? Most animals that are eaten are bred to be eaten. They would not exist if people weren’t going to eat them.
I think when going this route it helps to view it with an analogy as it makes it more intuitive to understand why I don’t find this an appealing view.
If I were to to adopt this view point, this would mean I would be also ok with breeding humans for any given purpose (let’s say Slavery as it’s an easy one) as I could justify it saying: “It’s better for them as they would have never existed otherwise”. However I think intuitively most people would agree that would still not make it ok and that’s why I would not consider it ok for animals. Because fundamentally we’re still violating - I think - fundamental rights. (e.g. most negative rights like right not to be killed)
P.S.: I have a rights based approach on how we should interact with animals and not a weéfarost one as I think it leads to these kinds of issues where you end up justifying terrible things.
It would depend on the animal and the relationship between their guardian and the animal.
I would not qualify someone having a rescue dog that the dog would be a slave. It’s more akin to having a child that you care for. In the same way I would not count a mentally disabled adult living with their parents a slave.
My current view on pets is that we should stop breeding cats and dogs just to keep them as pets especially seeing the horrendous conditions in which they are bred and the crazy things we select for while breeding to make them look cute while disregarding their well being (e.g. genetic disease that pure race cats or dogs have )
I however also understand that some animals are completely domesticated and cannot just be left alone. Taking care of them is fine for me.
Guardianship might be a good solutions for these cases.
See, at the end of the day you’re just drawing a line in the sand on what you think is acceptable. That is inherently subjective, and will be different from person to person. You might think one type of animal captivity is fine, while others might think that all animals should be completely free and left to wander off where they please - for better or worse with respect to what happens to them when they run away from home.
Ultimately, you telling people that they shouldn’t breed animals to eat is the same as someone saying domesticated animals shouldn’t be kept in households and should be allowed to wander free. The specific circumstances are different, but you’re still telling people that what they think is right is wrong. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Now, there’s certainly something to be said for the farming industry in general causing problems for the environment and people in it (this is true for both meat and veg). However the core principle of saying eating meat is wrong simply because you’re killing animals is a moral decision that you have made. Your morals should not be forced upon others, any more than theirs should be forced upon you.
If you truly think that rescuing a dog is the same as killing animals for taste and that by doing this you’re not the one forcing your morals on other sentient beings I guess it’s pointless to continue the discussion.
Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.
But let’s entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you’re raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.
Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.
I didn’t say preservation of all life was the most important factor. I said almost all life eats other life.
There’s a big difference between kicking a dog and eating food.
You’ve clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.
There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.
Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing it and eating it. At least I know I’d prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.
But what about a choice between being kicked and never being born? Most animals that are eaten are bred to be eaten. They would not exist if people weren’t going to eat them.
I think when going this route it helps to view it with an analogy as it makes it more intuitive to understand why I don’t find this an appealing view.
If I were to to adopt this view point, this would mean I would be also ok with breeding humans for any given purpose (let’s say Slavery as it’s an easy one) as I could justify it saying: “It’s better for them as they would have never existed otherwise”. However I think intuitively most people would agree that would still not make it ok and that’s why I would not consider it ok for animals. Because fundamentally we’re still violating - I think - fundamental rights. (e.g. most negative rights like right not to be killed)
P.S.: I have a rights based approach on how we should interact with animals and not a weéfarost one as I think it leads to these kinds of issues where you end up justifying terrible things.
So you don’t think any animals should be kept as pets? Arguably that is a form of animal slavery.
It would depend on the animal and the relationship between their guardian and the animal.
I would not qualify someone having a rescue dog that the dog would be a slave. It’s more akin to having a child that you care for. In the same way I would not count a mentally disabled adult living with their parents a slave.
My current view on pets is that we should stop breeding cats and dogs just to keep them as pets especially seeing the horrendous conditions in which they are bred and the crazy things we select for while breeding to make them look cute while disregarding their well being (e.g. genetic disease that pure race cats or dogs have )
I however also understand that some animals are completely domesticated and cannot just be left alone. Taking care of them is fine for me.
Guardianship might be a good solutions for these cases.
See, at the end of the day you’re just drawing a line in the sand on what you think is acceptable. That is inherently subjective, and will be different from person to person. You might think one type of animal captivity is fine, while others might think that all animals should be completely free and left to wander off where they please - for better or worse with respect to what happens to them when they run away from home.
Ultimately, you telling people that they shouldn’t breed animals to eat is the same as someone saying domesticated animals shouldn’t be kept in households and should be allowed to wander free. The specific circumstances are different, but you’re still telling people that what they think is right is wrong. That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Now, there’s certainly something to be said for the farming industry in general causing problems for the environment and people in it (this is true for both meat and veg). However the core principle of saying eating meat is wrong simply because you’re killing animals is a moral decision that you have made. Your morals should not be forced upon others, any more than theirs should be forced upon you.
If you truly think that rescuing a dog is the same as killing animals for taste and that by doing this you’re not the one forcing your morals on other sentient beings I guess it’s pointless to continue the discussion.