• SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Thanks for answering, I broadly agree. But what about consistency?

    A vegan might argue that eating meat is bad because it causes animal suffering. They would be morally required to save an animal from the butcher’s blade if given the chance (assuming they didn’t have to cause more suffering to do that).

    But an animal doesn’t know the difference between being killed by a butcher and being killed by a predator. So is the vegan not also morally required to save an animal from a predator? If not, how is that consistent with the basis of their veganism? It sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, hardly an element of a coherent ideology.

    Of course, once extended from the single animal to all animals, there are nuances to consider. If the whole world went vegan this instant, that would have enormous ramifications on the meat industry, and what would we do with all those animals? It might not be moral to instantly turn the world vegan and just free all industrial animals due to the chaos that would ensue. But surely it would be moral to explore what processes could turn the world vegan in a less destructive way.