@HPluckrose As a classical liberal, what are your thoughts on social democracy / the welfare & regulatory state? Are they compatible w/ CL?
I'd suggest that not eating them doesn't mean they're less likely to die but might well suffer more in life & in the process of dying.
-
-
What if a UK company started raising and killing millions of dogs and sold their meat? If the dogs lived good lives, would that be OK?
-
It would be the same with all animals, yes. I'd rather dogs got to live & have a good life than not live. I'd rather I did.
-
But we don't apply that reasoning to humans. We don't excuse murder by acknowledging that the victim lived a joyful 35 years.
-
It's the same w/ pets. We don't tolerate people who abuse or kill pets. We prosecute them. The line btw "pet" & "farm animal" is arbitrary.
-
I quite agree. I'm just not sure what to do about it. The option 'care for all animals as humans' isn't doable. Children are in poverty.
-
We can & must insist that farm animals are not abused tho. Stronger penalties for those who do.
-
Do you think animals raised for food in Europe/the UK are treated well? In the US, their lives are far from ideal or idyllic.
-
No. I think that's a very serious issue & there needs to be stronger regulations & harsher penalties for breaking them.
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The moral argument is not that animals die less if humans don't eat them but that humans do not feel complicit in their deaths.
-
This argument is from James Lindsay Life in Light of Death & I find it hard to refute.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.