I’m talking about an argument for veganism though. If you are saying that it’s acceptable for people to eat hunted meat, you’re not saying they should be vegans. And you’re encouraging a massive increase in hunting.
What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I’m not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.
Okay, then I think you’re completely missing my point, which is that arguing that causing less pain is good is a bad argument for veganism. Causing no pain would be the ethical argument, wouldn’t it? Causing less pain would still be unethical, right?
It’s sort of like trying to convince someone committing genocide they should stop by telling them they should slow down.
It’s not sort of like that though because the practicality of the matter is that humans have to eat to survive but they don’t have to genocide to survive. Reducing suffering as much as possible being the goal rather than eliminating it completely is not a new concept in philosophy considering eliminating suffering completely is impossible.
If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can’t say I care. Same way I don’t really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I’m not going to do it, I don’t see these things as food. And I think there’s a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.
I’m talking about an argument for veganism though. If you are saying that it’s acceptable for people to eat hunted meat, you’re not saying they should be vegans. And you’re encouraging a massive increase in hunting.
What part of my reference to it as animal abuse sounds like an endorsement of the practice? I’m not sure about you, but personally I consider animal abuse to be unacceptable.
Okay, then I think you’re completely missing my point, which is that arguing that causing less pain is good is a bad argument for veganism. Causing no pain would be the ethical argument, wouldn’t it? Causing less pain would still be unethical, right?
It’s sort of like trying to convince someone committing genocide they should stop by telling them they should slow down.
It’s not sort of like that though because the practicality of the matter is that humans have to eat to survive but they don’t have to genocide to survive. Reducing suffering as much as possible being the goal rather than eliminating it completely is not a new concept in philosophy considering eliminating suffering completely is impossible.
If it is only about reducing suffering as much as possible, would harvesting the meat from euthanized pets be acceptable?
If the only animal corpses anyone ate was euthanized pet remains and the practice was somehow free of influencing the unnecessary euthanization of more pets, I can’t say I care. Same way I don’t really care if people eat roadkill or animal products from a dumpster. I’m not going to do it, I don’t see these things as food. And I think there’s a minuscule harm done in the proliferation of the perception of these things as food. But that harm is negligible in the face of animal agriculture which is my primary concern.