i don’t know what it’s like to be a chicken or a pig
But you do know what it's like to suffer. And you know pigs, chickens, and other farm animals can suffer. Does that not count for anything? Or do you not consider suffering to be an inheriently bad thing?
OK, so this is literally an appeal to nature. I seriously don't see why behaviour should get a free pass just because it's 'natural,' except the very natural phenomenon of humans killing each other.
living things are in competition and killing is a matter of course. it is natural.
And?
i think a special case must be made against killings. among humans, there are many (distinct) arguments against killing. among the ones i’ve heard, the ones which would also apply to animals are not ones that i personally believe.
What do you believe? From what I've been able to gather from your replies to me and others, you put hold the following two beliefs:
I don't think these are sound arguments.
I'm not saying there are, but just because we currently murder pigs is not justification to continue killing them.
it is obvious that there is a difference or we wouldn’t discriminate between humans and non-human animals.
Isn't this just the is-ought problem though? Just because we currently distinguish between animals and humans doesn't mean we ought to.
Never heard of the term before now, but yeah I suppose it is NTT.
Like what? What criteria would allow for toddlers to be given moral consideration that would exclude animals?
Just because they're incapable of being moral agents, i.e. capable of understanding why murder is wrong, doesn't make it OK to murder them. A toddler would happily push you off a cliff, but that doesn't give you the right to push toddlers off cliffs.
The right to life and freedom from harm.
You weren't lying, this slaps.
No it's not. Disease is a natural phenomenon and is bad.