So the meat industry is basically a giant concentration camp of suffering, but im unsure if the suffering outweighs all the workers it employs, or evsn ths fact that they taste good.
Very good utilitarian way of thinking you're employing here, which can be used to justify everything else too I know slaves are suffering, but their suffering doesn't outweigh the money they're bringing to the empire, or even the fact that the shirt made from the cotton they picked is nice.
Thats what i was saying. It was the whole point. The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
I dont participate in online debate. Im more stating what i believe along with potential flaws in order to see if my mind can ever be changed. Its not really my job to convert people to how i think.
All you've done is admit that you think the suffering of others is fine and "worth it" for the tasty results, so long as those who are suffering are sufficiently different than you.
The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
That's a slimy phrasing the question in a way that immediately lets you off the hook for your choice to ignore and perpetuate suffering because it makes it seem like the question of non-human suffering hinges on non-humans being "the same as" human slaves. It's the old "well, obviously pigs and cows aren't quite as intellectually complex as humans therefore anything we do to them for the sake of humans enjoying treats is fine. What, do you think pigs and cows should be able to vote or learn to read?"
In other words, the answer to your question about whether we should empathize "in the same way" is no, not the "same way," but we absolutely should and must empathize with them as fellow sentient beings capable of emotions, joy, suffering, pleasure, pain just like humans, and recognize that the way we torture and murder billions of them every year for profit (and "taste") is one of the greatest crimes in the history of our species.
Your entire premise of who deserves your empathy is still based on how much someone is "like you" in whatever arbitrary ways that allow you to maintain the distinctions you've already made based on your comfort and convenience. And that part is the same as slave owners who would make similar arbitrary distinctions about how "different from themselves" their victims are.
Yes, sentient beings deserve your empathy. It's not at all a difficult conclusion to reach if you have any interest in being honest with yourself.
I dont really think i agree with that. What i said doesnt have much to do with what you think my motives are. Im sure it has something to do with someones tho, so its not a worthless comment.
Very good utilitarian way of thinking you're employing here, which can be used to justify everything else too
I know slaves are suffering, but their suffering doesn't outweigh the money they're bringing to the empire, or even the fact that the shirt made from the cotton they picked is nice.
Thats what i was saying. It was the whole point. The question is if animals should be emoathized with in the same way historical slaves are.
I dont participate in online debate. Im more stating what i believe along with potential flaws in order to see if my mind can ever be changed. Its not really my job to convert people to how i think.
All you've done is admit that you think the suffering of others is fine and "worth it" for the tasty results, so long as those who are suffering are sufficiently different than you.
That's a slimy phrasing the question in a way that immediately lets you off the hook for your choice to ignore and perpetuate suffering because it makes it seem like the question of non-human suffering hinges on non-humans being "the same as" human slaves. It's the old "well, obviously pigs and cows aren't quite as intellectually complex as humans therefore anything we do to them for the sake of humans enjoying treats is fine. What, do you think pigs and cows should be able to vote or learn to read?"
In other words, the answer to your question about whether we should empathize "in the same way" is no, not the "same way," but we absolutely should and must empathize with them as fellow sentient beings capable of emotions, joy, suffering, pleasure, pain just like humans, and recognize that the way we torture and murder billions of them every year for profit (and "taste") is one of the greatest crimes in the history of our species.
Your entire premise of who deserves your empathy is still based on how much someone is "like you" in whatever arbitrary ways that allow you to maintain the distinctions you've already made based on your comfort and convenience. And that part is the same as slave owners who would make similar arbitrary distinctions about how "different from themselves" their victims are.
Yes, sentient beings deserve your empathy. It's not at all a difficult conclusion to reach if you have any interest in being honest with yourself.
I dont really think i agree with that. What i said doesnt have much to do with what you think my motives are. Im sure it has something to do with someones tho, so its not a worthless comment.