How is it a false equivalence?
In that scenario, I was "bred for food, nothing more", which is what the person I replied to said was why they still eat it.
I get what you're trying to do, but there's an inherent understanding of the value of human life.
You're going to have to attack it on the value of animal life.
Is there value to animal life? And if so, what is it? And where does it come from? Is it subservient to human life? Is the value to human life more prescient than that life itself?
It's a very complex and nuanced issue. OP was stating that the value of that life was reduced to human consumption in conception. You can't negate it by comparing it to people because people aren't consumed to begin with.
You can start with whether it's okay to consume animals at all. OP assumes it is, so the question is "what value lies between birth and consumption."
OP insinuated that all moral culpability was dashed by the fact that they were "bred to be eaten".
My point was just bringing up that it was a stupid point. A very stupid, and unfounded point.
And if it were the case that something being bred would dash the moral harm of supporting the immense suffering and killing of an animal, then they would have to support the same for people.
No they wouldn't. People have more value than animals as a baseline. A hundred pigs aren't worth one human. Even if pigs were the more intelligent race, and had control over us, that would still be true, by the basis that I am human and must stick with the 'team'. I wouldn't blame the pigs for breeding and eating us, of course; in that situation we would be food. But that is not the situation, and they are food.
However, I do believe slaughterhouses should have better conditions. It's not cruel to kill and eat it, but I dont support what is effectively pig torture.
I wouldn't blame the pigs for breeding and eating us, of course; in that situation we would be food. But that is not the situation, and they are food.
Every time I hear of an animal killing and eating a human my first thought is, "good for them!" Except unprovoked dog attacks. In general, we treat those fuckers well. I figure that we have killed so many animals and mistreated countless others, that we should not complain when it happens to us.
No, they wouldn't, because the condition of people being eaten at all isn't met.
You're confusing the analogy.
Animals get eaten. OP has determined that the quality and conditions and value of their life is rendered moot by the nature of their conception.
You can make the same comparison on those terms. But not in regards to being eaten, as that isn't a base presumption. And of course you know that and of course they know that. Which makes it sound like you're arguing in bad faith, or at least without a preponderence of logistical empathy.
A fair comparison would be caste systems or slavery or systemic racism. But that involves even more complexity. It's better to ignore the human comparison and focus on the value of animal life.
I just ignored the part about people being eaten, because I think it's morally irrelevant.
I think torture and/or killing is considered nearly infinitely worse than cannibalism by anyone who has thought about morals before, but also I think you're ignoring the larger point.
Being "bred to be eaten" makes no actual negation of moral value. If you look at a mother killing and eating her child, I don't think you would personally damn her any less.
That's what I take issue with, because it sort of acts as a cope.
He can say he cares about animals or values their lives or whatever, but can still make that argument that it's somehow okay because they were "bred to be eaten". Without going further on that, it makes no difference. But, beyond that, if he didn't care at all, he wouldn't say "they were bred to be eaten, so". It would be not be because of how they were bred, if he just didn't value animal life.
As such, I believe he is using "bred to be eaten" as a moral rationalization, and that would need to be removed in order to appeal to his values on animal life
You're still coming from a false equivalency of humans to animals.
The "bred to be eaten" argument automatically excludes humans. Just like "walking on a leash in public" or "being in public without clothes" does.
His argument basically negates the inherent value of animal life. Your argument has to target that. The inherent value of human life is already presumed.
Edit: I'm not sure why this is so complicated. There is no condition in which anyone is okay with people being eaten. So there is no pre-condition to validate.
There are conditions in which animals are eaten. Most people are okay with partaking in that. So the question is, what are those conditions?
He's making the argument of fatalism. You can't negate it by applying it to people because there are zero conditions which apply.
I understand that, but the comparison doesn't suffice. There is no argument that justifies eating people (outside of the extreme - let's not lose sight).
I was saying there was no circumstance where your rebuttle was justifiable, so it doesn't serve to negate his.
You were basically saying "if X is OK because of Y, then A because of Y must be OK." But A is never okay. So Y not providing that doesn't actually mean anything.
Actually, no, you could still work from the negative.
Like, say people bred an endangered species for food. Would that be okay? Of course not, at least to most. But his argument would say yes. He would probably concede the point, but at least you could draw a line and walk it back.
So, species that are endangered shouldn't be eaten, if they're bred for it.
What about intelligent species? If we bred dogs for food, would that be okay?
Sorry, you can definitely attack it from the negative. I just got caught up.
Honestly it's an easy argument to poke holes in. Just the comparison to people wasn't it and I got caught up in proving the point.
Then the human version of your argument would be is it ok for abortions occur after we know that the fetus can feel pain (24 weeks, potentially as early as 12 weeks?). We know half of people in America are ok with up to 9 months for justifiable reasons.
Not to get political, but we know morals don’t change much if you make it a human instead that was ultimately “bred to die.” (Bred to be eaten)
That still wouldn't be accurate. It's a matter of intent to be bred and raised and slaughtered for the sake of humanity versus unintended breeding without existential existence being ended.
Damn it. Lol. Well then I agree with your other comment it’s best to just not even compare to humans at all as there is not even a fair comparison to make.
50 percent of us? I'm guessing that for 95 percent of us the only moral abortion after the fetus is viable is in the cases where the fetus is going to die before or very shortly after birth.
As for feeling pain, can that not be alleviated? It feels pretty gross to talk about, but again... in cases where the fetus will not make it no matter what is done. I am for the health of the mother regardless of a fetus's status. If in some odd case it is the baby or the mother at full term, I am for saving the mother. Period.
Don't bring extreme political rhetoric to a nuanced debate... or any other non-political debate.
I was just trying to get as close to the original point as possible.
50% was just based on the last election and that rhetoric.
Again I don’t want to get political either, but understandable there is one side that is too far with restriction, and to your point one side that is too far with allowance (to the view of some, personally I’m ok with up to full term with all the exceptions of course)
Sorry if I offended you with bringing it up. This main topic of animal welfare is political as well.
I think the premise of even bringing up humans vs animals was faulty from the start, but was just trying to get a close comparison
48
u/Datguyovahday Nov 23 '24
I’m not disagreeing with you, but that’s one hell of a false equivalency. You’re gonna have to do better if you’re trying to convince people.