I can't say that I think it's really all that outlandish of an idea, though, personally. I mean, meat consumption is happening on a scale that completely dwarves slavery-- if you view any farmed species of animal life as being anything remotely close to as worthy of moral consideration/worth as humans, it shouldn't be hard to see how or why someone can reach that conclusion. For me, valuing the lives of humans more than animals is purely driven by self-interested subjective and biological bias as well as comfort and conditioning-- I'm not sure I can make an objective moral argument that actually backs up the sentiment and that is consistent with how I view everything else.
I have the same immediate instinct, but I don't have (and haven't heard) a good counter-argument for it that doesn't just sound like forced rationalization, personally. It likely feels absurd purely because it's so extreme compared to what's commonly accepted and ingrained in us/benefits our own self interests, but that's true of any moral frontier.
I agree that it's likely off-putting and possibly counter-productive (because people's first instinct is to resist the idea and find any reason they can to dismiss and ridicule it), but I'm not sure that makes it any less true, regardless of how extreme it is.
There is a distinction between humans and animals though. Always has been and always will be. Some will say there isn't, and that's their right, but there is still a distinction. There are still laws about what you can't do to animals, it's not like I'm saying we can do whatever we want with them though.
But that's not a good objective counter argument (and listen, I inherently WANT to eat meat and do regardless, so I'm more than open to one and will change my mind if I find a compelling one, but I haven't), because it's driven entirely by status quo traditions and comforts ("There are existing laws for it!" is a particularly bad one). There are distinctions, but I'm not sure what about those distinctions cause them to be any less relevant and that would still be consistent with how I distinguish between different groups of humans and their moral worth (distinctions in intelligence or degree of complexity sure don't hold up, for example).
Why do you need distinctions between different groups of humans to determine their moral worth? There is not a distinction for that. That's surely a path we should never go down again in society.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Sure, I can look at specific distinctions between humans and animals (like intelligence and complexity) and say that because humans are more advanced in those areas they have significantly more moral worth, but when I apply those same standards to different categories of humans, that doesn't hold up. It isn't any less wrong to murder a mentally disabled child than to murder fully grown adult, for example.
Future generations will view it like slavery is viewed today, pretty sure that was the line. My takeaway from that, is that person personally believes that now.
The distinction is at the species level. Do you have problems killing insects or spiders in your house or apartment?
No, and I also eat animal meat, but again, the only reason for that which I'm aware of is due to my own biological bias and my impulse to adhere to status quo norms and comforts/desires/fears as well as my ability to remove myself from things that are dissimilar to me (whether it's morally right to or not). That isn't a compelling moral argument.
To me, what you're describing is a case where our self interest in personal survival outweighs our desire to be moral, not a case where we're behaving morally-- You're essentially arguing that it's a necessary evil (a phrase that implies immorality), which is another discussion altogether. And listen, I'm not saying that it shouldn't-- Moral consideration isn't necessarily the absolute most important thing in the world and shouldn't be the sole barometer for what is considered understandable behavior-- We're selfish beings by design, and if you were in a desperate life or death situation where you had to harm someone you didn't know or care about or who didn't deserve it against their will in order to save yourself, you may just do that and it may be somewhat understandable-- but that doesn't make it morally right. Either way, though, we should call a spade a spade about the act committed, rights/social contracts/intrinsic conscious value violated, and broader, more removed objective principles. The idea that our own self interests contributes to how moral something is doesn't make much sense and seems antithetical to me. The two are often at odds with one another-- In fact, that's what makes behaving morally challenging and at times impractical.
Correct. I know hunting hasn't been brought up much here, but it usually does in these discussions. Something it doesn't get credit for is how hunting has helped rebuild ecosystems. Many of the animals today were on the edge of extinction before refrigeration became a thing. Humans would have to hunt quite a bit and there would be a lot of wasted meat because it could be kept or sent to people in mass. Now with taxes and regulation, the hunting industry has helped many species recover and flourish. Over-fishing is a risk though right now.
You'd be surprised. It's just like gluten-free. Too many people believe that simply if something is vegan or gluten-free, then it must be healthier. Those foods are made for people that have actual diet restrictions where that is their only option to have that type of food. Although some of those food brands will try and push misinformation.
