PhilosophyMemes

meat isn't necessary for the vast majority of people.

you don't know what others need

I'm not really swayed by the cruelty argument personally. I am much more open to the environmental damage arguments, but it's specifically the way vegans prefer to paint the issue in terms of a moral imperative which keeps me at arms length.

There are legitimately places in the world where the only realistic way to extract nutrients from the land is to graze goats and eat them. That reduces the morality argument to agricultural privilege imo.

The beauty of this logic is that the wrongness of something falls into what we define by "cruel" which fits better into our actual moral arguments and lets room for changes in opinion without changing all the logic.

For instance for a person to move from not being vegan into being began only would need to consider that eating meat without need is indeed cruel, and then wrong. But the whole structure of trying to avoid cruelty stands.

I find it more "elegant" that a moral solution that tries to give animal rights, because then you would need to move into big changes in logic to move from one position to another.

My issue with that approach is that all rights that we concede to animals are related to humans. We would not police interactions between animals (unless provoked by a human). So it feel strange to give an animal the right to live just if its live would be taken by a human, but that right becoming meaningless if the life-taker is another animal. At the end we are only caring about human-animal iterations so why not simplify making it an human duty instead of an animal right?

I'm also fond of duties. From two perspectives. We could talk about giving animal rights, but we could not talk about giving animal duties. So they would be recipient of rights without duties. And I also like to remind people that humans not only have rights, that we also have duties which are equally important.

The base of the underlying logic is also not against veganism. As soon as you consider killing an animal for it's meat something cruel it becomes inmoral. The the debate gets simplified in talking about what constitutes cruelty and, if killing for eating is cruel or not. Which to me seems much more on point that talking about animal rights which could get complicated and have the deep meaning lost in words and concepts.

At the end the animal having or not having rights is meaningless as most people debating this care only about what the human is doing to the animal. For instance, in a word without humans, would the animals still have those human invented rights?

can you explain what you mean by will to live?