this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)

PhilosophyMemes

308 readers
154 users here now

Memes must be related to phil.

The Memiverse:
!90s_memes@quokk.au
!y2k_memes@quokk.au
!sigh_fi@quokk.au

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] astutemural@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago

Enh. I don't personally see the issue with the rights argument - although I think the environmental damage/inefficiency argument is probably the most effective. Plenty of places have animal cruelty laws, often protecting cats/dogs/pets above farm animals. These are legal rights that these animals have been given. We can then point to research on animal cognition - e.g. that pigs have been shown to be as smart as many dog breeds - to demonstrate the hypocrisy.

Personally, it boils down to this: being violent towards less powerful beings is almost universally considered to be evil. We have quite a lot of laws about this. Extending these rights to non-human beings is just as natural as extending it to your neighbors, and done for the same reason - a society that commits wanton acts of cruelty in one legal arena will be more willing to commit them in others. It is self-defense as much as goodwill towards others.