. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter
. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy
. You don’t need to shower everyday
. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans
. Monty Python is very overrated
eating meat doesn’t inflict any pain or suffering though.
It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it’s a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.
none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.
Describe a way to eat meat that doesn’t require prior suffering then.
an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn’t cause it to have been produced.
That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.
Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:
Isn’t this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?
none of that is causal.
I used “so” and “hence” in both of those examples, indicating what I perceive as causality. How am I wrong?
people have free will. their actions can only be said to be caused by their own will.
I am not interested in discussing meta-physics. For you to eat meat, an animal suffered. That is the point.
eating meat doesn’t cause an animal to have suffered.
all of that can be true without necessitating veganism
Moral baseline is not a necessity. It’s a comparison point. Basically, if you’re not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I’m not vegan, I’m vegetarian, so I’m in the negatives I guess.
you are splitting hairs
I’m not a utilitarian. most people aren’t
Then I guess for you there is no way to outweigh not being vegan. Consider utilitarianism :)
i have considered it, and its epistemic issues make it impractical as a basis of deciding correct actions.
Oh, you need to employ bayesianism to make utilitarianism even begin to make sense. Regardless of whether I might ultimately find utilitarianism contradictory, Bayesianism is the hill I’d die on.