Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.
Ok so genuine question (and also my odd moral I guess?) why is eating a plant more moral than eating an animal? They're both equally alive and subsequently equally dead. Sure plants don't have a nervous system but they do react to harmful stimuli in a way somewhat analagous to a pain response. The only real difference appears to be that we can relate to animals more.
Eat plants: plants die
Eat animals: animals have to eat a bunch of plants first meaning way more plants die and also animals die
Plants don't have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings. Its stimulus-response system starts and stops at that. Animals on the other hand can experience suffering and pleasure, and and it's morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second
this is only true under a limited set of moral beliefs. most people aren't utilitarians though
But most people do care if someone hurts their own dog. Why is causing pain to animals not okay when dogs are involved but it is for pigs, cows and chickens?
Kant dealt with this like 200 years ago. have you tried actually learning any ethical philosophy?
Your arguments lack any logic so don't lecture me about philosophy. It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.
you're wrong, and making a statement like this doesn't make it true
actually most professional philosophers are deontologists. and they eat meat and eggs and dairy.
What are you talking about? Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do? That's just some nonsense without any context.
Edit: it feels like whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.
they're the experts on ethics and logic, both of which you seem to think you have a firm grasp on. I'm pointing out that you are probably mistaken.
I've never met someone so confidently incorrect on Lemmy before. You just switched "most people" to "most professional philosophers" and now you are trying to win at least some argument about that. That's derailing at its finest.
if you want to lose an argument about the validity of utilitarian ethics, I'll be happy to help you. if you want to keep throwing out red herrings, and you can stop making it personal, that's fine too
I'm following your lead. if you want to stick with your assertions about pleasure and suffering I'll be glad to eviscerate utilitarianism for you.
Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?
Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.
If that's the litmus test, then there are certainly animals that aren't sentient and don't meet those requirements. Is it OK to eat animals that do not have brains?
You are also denying oxygen to those cows
Actually, (correct me if i'm wrong) carrots are not dead until you boil/cook them.
^I^ ^love^ ^poking^ ^holes^ ^in^ ^people's^ ^analogies^ ^without^ ^addressing^ ^their^ ^points.^
I think this is the one thing that is impossible to defend. In my opinion, not being vegan is impossible to justify, on ethical and moral grounds. And I am not vegan currently (I was in the past).
Why?
Why not?
I'm genuinely asking. People approach this topic from different sides, and I want to understand.
Because I think it is wrong to kill an individual if it is not necessary. Calorie intake is not a legitimate reason if it can also be plant-based.
most people don't believe that. I think it's fair to ask for some justification
Make the plants free and people will naturally eat more of them.
Probably. It's a shame that meat is so heavily subsidized. Without the subsidies, meat would be far too expensive for normal earners. In my country (Germany), for example, you pay 19% tax on oat milk and 7% on cow's milk. Because cow's milk is considered a staple food...🤡
Plant-basee alternatives are such a joke to me.Plant based meats and alternative milks are built upon an infrastructure that demands massive resource extraction from third world countries, buttressed by an impoverished underclass that suffers generational trauma to feed the transactional corporate machine. Just don't eat meat; veggies, fruit, and legumes are all you need.
You're right, they aren't perfect but they are better than meat in most cases. If a plants based meat alternative is what it takes for someone to reduce or stop their meat intake then that's a moral improvement in my book.