A legislative move to ban the consumption of dog meat is losing steam as rival parties have yet to reach a consensus over the issue amid fierce opposition from dog meat traders.
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
I agree that just causing suffering for its own sake is bad. but I think that it’s very possible you could kill something without a pressing need and it not be bad.
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.
what rights do you think animals deserve?
Forget rights.
What ethical foundation permits someone to kill animals when they don’t need to?
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
Something being common doesn’t mean it’s moral.
i think it’s amoral, actually. and a phenomenon being so ubiquitous is a good indicator of amorality, even if it is not a guarantee.
edit: do you have an argument that killing non-human animals is not moral?
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
did you mean immoral here?
Yes
I agree that just causing suffering for its own sake is bad. but I think that it’s very possible you could kill something without a pressing need and it not be bad.
The right to life and freedom from harm.
do you think they would be willing to recognize that right for others? they certainly don’t act that way, now.
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.
right, but the thing that makes it wrong to push a toddler off a cliff may not apply to non-human animals.
Like what? What criteria would allow for toddlers to be given moral consideration that would exclude animals?
level with me: is this NTT?
NTT?
“name the trait”