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.
Right. Would this reduce animal death and suffering at all or would it just absolve ourselves of responsibility for it and for them?
-
-
We can't be too bluntly utilitarian. We don't have many obligations to wild animals. Liberating them absolves us of responsibility, I'd say.
-
OK, so this is an argument for liberating us from responsibility, not for reducing animal suffering & death. I'm more concerned abt latter.
-
If pigs could have a council & demand their freedom & say they'd rather die free than live as prisoners on farms, I'd say they should do so.
-
But as they can't, I'm more concerned about the suffering of animals we made dependant on us.
-
I am too. So there are two issues: (1) what to do with living dependent animals and (2) the die free/die well/never live trilemma.
-
And I think we've reached an impasse coz I'd go with die well & you with never live.
-
It seems I am motivated by 'most pleasure/least suffering' and you by the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans. Both valid.
-
Perhaps. Of the 3, I'd say live & die free in the wild. I do think some animals have rights, though I think of myself as a consequentialist.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Obviously if they never get to live, they never die but is dying so awful it's better never to live? If death can be without pain or fear?
-
We don't mourn the absence of millions of unborn badgers, and if we did, it would be wrong to domesticate, breed, and slaughter them.
-
But is there a rationale for why its wrong? Why you'd decide they're better off never being born?
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.