With ethics people either end up doubling down on all murder being ok except for theirself or going vegan. There isn’t any morally significant difference that is so strong it justifies hurting animals and doesn’t justify hurting humans
Lol you would rather do 15 backflips and double down than just stop hurting animals. NTT isn’t trash and criticism of it I’ve never found to hold up. Elaborate more don’t just state
The message chain is so massive at this point and fragmented I am not going to waste my time reading, it doesn’t matter for our conversation. I’m on mobile
With ethics people either end up doubling down on all murder being ok except for theirself or going vegan. There isn’t any morally significant difference that is so strong it justifies hurting animals and doesn’t justify hurting humans
i think you’re (clumsily) referring to the NTT argument, which falls afowl of the line-drawing fallacy
Lol you would rather do 15 backflips and double down than just stop hurting animals. NTT isn’t trash and criticism of it I’ve never found to hold up. Elaborate more don’t just state
if you care to lay out your argument I will be happy to show the flaw.
I have laid it out and you keep dodging by saying its not causal
it’s not, but I’m so glad you learned what the word means!
You were typing casual not causal lol
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/10805693
go look for edits
The message chain is so massive at this point and fragmented I am not going to waste my time reading, it doesn’t matter for our conversation. I’m on mobile
that’s just not true. kant was fine with animal husbandry and against murder.
Kant is a joke
so you can see how people disagree about moral frameworks.
It doesn’t make unnecesary suffing ok. If my neighbor has a dog can i kick the dog?
kant explains that cruelty is bad, and even uses the example of dog kicking!
Ok, stop kicking dogs
I dont
It’s an analogy.