Nah, it’s morally wrong and if you are honest you will actually agree. Let me explain:
Let’s set a moral baseline that we both agree with.
Shooting a random person that has done no harm to anyone in the head without their explicit consent is morally bad, yes?
Now, what is different about, say, a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig? If we then apply that difference to that random human again, is it now less than morally bad to kill them?
The honest answer (and one that I can at least accept) is: there is no such difference.
The pig is food. I will eat the pig. I won’t eat the human. The pig isn’t indiscriminately murdered, it is slaughtered for food. We as a society still think it is morally right to kill someone convicted of a crime in some places. While I don’t agree with that, those states do. If morals can be grey, it’s because they are. Morality is a human construct. What’s moral today can be immoral tomorrow.
“what is different about a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig?”
oh, the classic rhetorical trap of “name the trait” which always devolves into a no-true-scotsman. on its face it’s purely a spectrum fallacy. the inability to identify a singular trait or even a set of traits that differentiate humans from pigs doesn’t change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
please, no one fall for this line of discussion. it’s just an exercise in shaming and time-wasting.
Nah, it’s morally wrong and if you are honest you will actually agree. Let me explain:
Let’s set a moral baseline that we both agree with. Shooting a random person that has done no harm to anyone in the head without their explicit consent is morally bad, yes?
Now, what is different about, say, a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig? If we then apply that difference to that random human again, is it now less than morally bad to kill them?
The honest answer (and one that I can at least accept) is: there is no such difference.
What is your answer?
The pig is food. I will eat the pig. I won’t eat the human. The pig isn’t indiscriminately murdered, it is slaughtered for food. We as a society still think it is morally right to kill someone convicted of a crime in some places. While I don’t agree with that, those states do. If morals can be grey, it’s because they are. Morality is a human construct. What’s moral today can be immoral tomorrow.
So if someone declares you food, is it now moral for them to slit your throat and butcher you?
Sure. I probably won’t have much say in the matter anyways. End my suffering!!
the “name the trait” argument is so well known vegans just call it “ntt”. they’re not here in good faith; they think they have a gotcha.
“what is different about a pig that makes it less than morally bad to kill the pig?”
oh, the classic rhetorical trap of “name the trait” which always devolves into a no-true-scotsman. on its face it’s purely a spectrum fallacy. the inability to identify a singular trait or even a set of traits that differentiate humans from pigs doesn’t change the fact that they are fundamentally different.
please, no one fall for this line of discussion. it’s just an exercise in shaming and time-wasting.
“I can’t answer this, so it must be a trick.”
Ok then.