Unless one is a hunter-gatherer, meat eating isn’t about survival.
Instead, what it means is that they may care; but not enough to give up or work on giving up the pleasure of eating meat daily.
No one is forcing these people to participate. Being overworked is an absolutely ridiculous excuse for not being able to cut out unethically farmed meat from your diet.
While chickens are dumb, evil animals.
People can make a choice for themselves, most don't because deep down they don't give a fuck, many do though
There’s a reason a bunch of states passed laws making it illegal to photograph the warehouses where these animals are raised.
If there was a transparency law, that required an accurate picture of the location where the animals whose meat is being sold was raised to be stuck on the packaging it wouldn’t be very long before the more inhumane (or more accurately, the more inhumane looking) meat sources would become unprofitable.
Because most people are willing to pay a little bit more if they fully understand the ethical consequences. Actually, what is more likely to happen is that many people would eat meat less frequently, opting for more plant based sources of protein and then spend the extra money needed for the more humane meat when they wanted meat itself.
Most people I’ve grown up with are aware but don’t care or just put it out mind.
Willful blindness is a very human condition and a terrifying one.
Poe's law people.
Never assume that sarcasm sufficiently communicates over a textual medium.
Wish granted. Please, hop up on the operating table. We're not asking. Thank you, by the way, for the ongoing funding for our project that we've arranged to have diverted from your pay from your employer.
Now, we're going to test the write functionality of Neuralink. We'll know it's working, because when it is, you'll stop screaming.
Moral: Abandon ethics at your own risk.
Normative suggestion: Those that suggest putting aside ethics should be the first to have ethics put aside in all matters pertaining to themselves, that they may be reminded why we make such a big deal of them in the first place.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/us/california-bees-fish-court...
https://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Sasquatch-Ordinance-Actuall...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_Unit...
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/anti-jewis...
Oh yes. It's the laws that will save us, and keep everything sane. /s
Let's try this again shall we? Ethics and morality are a priori to any system of legalistic systemitization, not the other way around. You will not find a law that that "stealing is okay". You will find law that goes of it's way to decree that X is not (something morally/ethically unconscionable, but really something else).
>You can call it a slippery slope
It isn't. It's an incontrovertible case of anthropocentric thinking with a dash of self-referential inconsistency, followed by an appeal to pragmatism, stemming from a desire for nearer-term gratification at the expense of normalization of deviance/Overton window shifting.
Slippery slope/heap fallacy my ass. You aren't getting out of this with "I'm just going to disengage with a platitude." You do you, but don't delude yourself into thinking there is some inherent virtue in lowering the bar and managing to traverse the hurdle when someone else is paying the price for you not being capable of being bothered to deal with things the right way.
You can perseverate all you want, but someone else is going to get there before us then and we won’t be in a hegemonic position to enforce our ethical framework (fwiw I think is good) over the rest of the world. A bad actor will be in that position and you cause more pain through inaction.
Something being new doesn't mean it's progress
Lead paint was progress
Asbestos was progress
Freon was progress
> We literally kill millions of cows a day and we’re okay with it,
You might, I'm not, millions of people aren't
Here's Christopher Hitchens on this habit, in the first paragraphs of an early essay called "The `We' Fallacy":
> Lionel Trilling once wrote a short essay on the problem of ‘we’. Apparently, whenever he said of a novel or other work under review that it engaged ‘our’ sympathy, or that ‘we’ felt repelled by the author’s assumptions, he would receive letters of complaint. Who was this ‘we’, the letterwriters demanded to know, and what allowed Trilling to speak for ‘us’ in this way? The literary critic’s experience may not seem immediately relevant to contemporary politics.
> But as one surveys the dismal field of political commentary, it is hard not to conclude that half the cretinism of the mainstream media is attributable to the ‘we’ fallacy. This is especially true in any discussion of imperialism. There is talk of ‘our’ interests, ‘our’ credibility, and ‘our’ will. [...]