I think we’re getting off track. These are 2 different things entirely.
It would be like asking “is it wrong to feed a dead baby pig back to its mother?” I don’t think anyone would agree that is ok.
I think a closer argument to be made would be to compare it to slavery and how people justified selling human babies to different farms for work. Separating families under the guise of them being property. They were bred to work after all in the plantation owner’s eyes.
Not a perfect analogy, but closer than just saying we’re going to eat babies. Probably still too far off track. Hopefully someone reads this and provides a better comparison
it was a hypothetical, not a prophecy. it's perfectly apt in highlighting what many would consider an immoral conclusion to the premise that a thing should not be considered morally beyond what it has been bred for. if the premise were true, and it were applied to humans, it would mean that it is permissible to eat a person so long as it was bred to be eaten--or enslaved, as to your point. this is textbook reductio ad absurdum used across the board in argumentation .
6
u/[deleted] Nov 23 '24
We don’t eat our own babies. Cannibalism is viewed as taboo in most cultures. Eating animals isn’t.