• @AA5B
    link
    12 months ago
    1. Why stoop to their level? We’re claiming to be better than a killer
    2. No take backs. One mistake is too many mistakes
    3. It’s actually cheaper to keep them alive
    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -3
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you hate killing so much, you must be vegan, right? Or do you kill some non-human animals but not other non-human animals?

          • @aidan
            link
            0
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            What? I care about human lives, I don’t really care about the lives of other animals

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Since human beings are also just animals, I assume you have some non-arbitrary reason for favoring one species over another?

              Keep in mind that speciation is technically arbitrary, and that we can just as easily decide that you and I are not the same species. Go ahead, explain to me why I’m entitled to farm and eat you. I can’t wait to hear this.

              • @aidan
                link
                12 months ago

                non-arbitrary reason

                Do you have a non-arbitrary reason for opposing murder?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  0
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  “Murder” is an illegal killing. I don’t oppose murder; I oppose immoral killing. That’s different.

                  If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

                  An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

                  What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species? Moral philosophers consider this question fairly settled, so let me know if you have some novel insights.

                  • @aidan
                    link
                    12 months ago

                    If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

                    And that is where you will find your answer, I have a personal intuition both about what lives I value- I don’t believe all pointless killing is bad, regardless of life form, I don’t care if someone pulls up the plants in their yard because they feel like it. And you clearly value some life less than human life given that you eat to exist.

                    An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

                    What? You understand an intuitive belief can exist for all of those things right?

                    What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species?

                    Pretty obvious, I care about the lives of some species and not others. (Do you take antibiotics?). It is based on some framework, that is ultimately based on intuition as well.