I’m not humanizing animals. I just acknowledge the fact that they are sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain, physically and emotionally. That enjoy certain things and dislike other things. Is it okay to torture a dog because wild dogs get into fights where they get hurt terribly?
Of course animals in nature are killed brutally, but so are humans. It’s totally natural for bears to kill humans. Does that mean we can also kill humans? See how this doesn’t mean anything for the question whether it’s immoral to kill animals or not? I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree that it can be morally okay to kill an animal, given certain circumstances. The argument “in nature, animals are killed brutally” just has absolutely no implications for human ethics. Animals and “nature” have no concept of morality. Humans do.
How about accepting that your argument was wrong? Your first paragraph had nothing to do with it. I agree with your first paragraph, but we must still ask the question whether it is moral or not to kill animals for food even if they didn’t suffer. It’s not clear and people have different opinions on it and that’s okay. In any way, a lot would have to change compared to the status quo.
I’m not humanizing animals. I just acknowledge the fact that they are sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain, physically and emotionally. That enjoy certain things and dislike other things. Is it okay to torture a dog because wild dogs get into fights where they get hurt terribly?
Of course animals in nature are killed brutally, but so are humans. It’s totally natural for bears to kill humans. Does that mean we can also kill humans? See how this doesn’t mean anything for the question whether it’s immoral to kill animals or not? I wouldn’t even necessarily disagree that it can be morally okay to kill an animal, given certain circumstances. The argument “in nature, animals are killed brutally” just has absolutely no implications for human ethics. Animals and “nature” have no concept of morality. Humans do.
Lifestock doesn’t need to suffer. How about not completely ignoring my first paragraph?
How about accepting that your argument was wrong? Your first paragraph had nothing to do with it. I agree with your first paragraph, but we must still ask the question whether it is moral or not to kill animals for food even if they didn’t suffer. It’s not clear and people have different opinions on it and that’s okay. In any way, a lot would have to change compared to the status quo.