I'm glad you took into account how the relative badness of different animal product.
I think people aware of the wrongness of the animal exploitation and only reducing their support without going all the way are deeply disappointing persons. Yet, they are many, so it is important that they know what is the worse of the worse.
I find that when people object to animal/human comparisons they more often than not misunderstand the conclusion being drawn. I.e. they think I’m saying that people are as valuable as they think animals are (so not very valuable, or maybe even not valuable at all), when I’m fact it goes the other way, or at the very least I’m only trying to argue that animals are more valuable than previously thought.
people would have to be objecting to the idea that animals are very valuable individuals when they find such comparisons offensive or improper. But this would strike me as very odd given that the objection is typically that i’m not showing proper respect to humans and/or arguing that humans don’t matter or matter as much as they think animals matter.
I think this misunderstanding is probably innocent a lot of time as when comparisons are being made it can be very easy to mistake what factors someone is actually comparing. I think we can combat this by asking what the similarities are when a comparison is being made so we can understand our interlocutor.
You complain that many people say dumb things because they haven't thought about a topic for more than 5 minutes. In the case of eating meat, you think their reflexive defenses of it are dumb. But that flavor of dumbness cuts both ways. There are just as many things that large numbers of people will condemn because they haven't thought about it for more than 5 minutes, and you seem to have no problem taking advantage of that fact when you mention Auschwitz and Treblinka. Reopening those places in any form, no matter how watered down, is going to elicit reflexive condemnation all around. Heck, you could propose reopening them as regular camps - no death or torture or confinement, just tents for holiday, and people would reflexively condemn it.
If you want people to consider the implications of justifying factory farming because animals aren't smart, maybe try something that will actually cause them to consider instead of provoking a gut reaction. Perhaps something less familiar...
One of the "Bobiverse" books contains a technologically advanced alien species with an interesting life cycle. When their young are born, they are basically wild animals (occasionally dangerous ones), with no capacity for language or reason, all the way up through adolescence. This species basically lets their young roam the wilds until they develop the mental capacities to join society. Adults have no more memory of their childhoods than humans have of their infancy, and they have no qualms about culling young members of their own species if the juvenile population becomes a danger to adult settlements. To me, this implication of "it's okay to harm things that aren't smart" seems perfectly fine and would probably seem reasonable for a significant proportion of the rest of the human meat-eating population. At the very least it is more likely to provoke thought and consideration than invoking nazis would.
What do you mean when you say hypocrites “have no right” to morally judge others’ actions? Obviously you don’t mean they shouldn’t have the legal right. So are you saying it’s morally wrong for someone to condemn the actions of another if they themselves act hypocritically in totally separate contexts? Or are you just saying you personally won’t give their condemnation any credence? And if the latter, why use language like “you have no right”, other than just to use hypocrisy as its own moral cudgel in your argument?
My view is that if hypocrites can’t condemn, then no one can condemn. That’s not to say hypocrisy is an acceptable state of mind — you should work to be consistent — just that it’s a universal state of mind in various contexts, and shouldn’t exclude anyone from any discourse.
Yes. All of this.
I'm glad you took into account how the relative badness of different animal product.
I think people aware of the wrongness of the animal exploitation and only reducing their support without going all the way are deeply disappointing persons. Yet, they are many, so it is important that they know what is the worse of the worse.
I find that when people object to animal/human comparisons they more often than not misunderstand the conclusion being drawn. I.e. they think I’m saying that people are as valuable as they think animals are (so not very valuable, or maybe even not valuable at all), when I’m fact it goes the other way, or at the very least I’m only trying to argue that animals are more valuable than previously thought.
people would have to be objecting to the idea that animals are very valuable individuals when they find such comparisons offensive or improper. But this would strike me as very odd given that the objection is typically that i’m not showing proper respect to humans and/or arguing that humans don’t matter or matter as much as they think animals matter.
I think this misunderstanding is probably innocent a lot of time as when comparisons are being made it can be very easy to mistake what factors someone is actually comparing. I think we can combat this by asking what the similarities are when a comparison is being made so we can understand our interlocutor.
You complain that many people say dumb things because they haven't thought about a topic for more than 5 minutes. In the case of eating meat, you think their reflexive defenses of it are dumb. But that flavor of dumbness cuts both ways. There are just as many things that large numbers of people will condemn because they haven't thought about it for more than 5 minutes, and you seem to have no problem taking advantage of that fact when you mention Auschwitz and Treblinka. Reopening those places in any form, no matter how watered down, is going to elicit reflexive condemnation all around. Heck, you could propose reopening them as regular camps - no death or torture or confinement, just tents for holiday, and people would reflexively condemn it.
If you want people to consider the implications of justifying factory farming because animals aren't smart, maybe try something that will actually cause them to consider instead of provoking a gut reaction. Perhaps something less familiar...
One of the "Bobiverse" books contains a technologically advanced alien species with an interesting life cycle. When their young are born, they are basically wild animals (occasionally dangerous ones), with no capacity for language or reason, all the way up through adolescence. This species basically lets their young roam the wilds until they develop the mental capacities to join society. Adults have no more memory of their childhoods than humans have of their infancy, and they have no qualms about culling young members of their own species if the juvenile population becomes a danger to adult settlements. To me, this implication of "it's okay to harm things that aren't smart" seems perfectly fine and would probably seem reasonable for a significant proportion of the rest of the human meat-eating population. At the very least it is more likely to provoke thought and consideration than invoking nazis would.
What do you mean when you say hypocrites “have no right” to morally judge others’ actions? Obviously you don’t mean they shouldn’t have the legal right. So are you saying it’s morally wrong for someone to condemn the actions of another if they themselves act hypocritically in totally separate contexts? Or are you just saying you personally won’t give their condemnation any credence? And if the latter, why use language like “you have no right”, other than just to use hypocrisy as its own moral cudgel in your argument?
My view is that if hypocrites can’t condemn, then no one can condemn. That’s not to say hypocrisy is an acceptable state of mind — you should work to be consistent — just that it’s a universal state of mind in various contexts, and shouldn’t exclude anyone from any discourse.