I’ve been discussing with my sister (a big fan of her cats) about what lives we would save in an emergency. I think a human live is worth more than an animal’s no question asked but she thinks otherwhise. So to end this discussion I’m writing here.

  1. Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy?
  2. What if it was between your cat and a stranger?
  3. Why?
  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    7 months ago

    If it would be a moral tragedy to kill a cat and eat it, why is that not true for a cow? If life eats life, it’s not murder for me to kill and eat the cat, correct? So why is it a moral evil if killing and eating the cow is not?

    You may have misunderstood, or maybe I didn’t word it clearly. There is no moral difference between killing and eating a cow or a cat, or even another human if need be but our society doesn’t see it that way, and that’s probably a good thing.

    I think you’re saying that this is just one of the “fucked up” stances that society has taken? But then why participate in it?

    It’s quite difficult for one born in a society and living within a society’s geographical bounds to just “not participate in it”. I choose to not participate in parts as I am able. I am able to afford meat that is not produced in the factory farm system (i.e. crowdcow), and so that is one way.

    but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

    Yes, it’s really nearly impossible to participate as a normal member of modern liberal society without being a major hypocrite. The more you try to not be a hypocrite, the more people think you’re a weirdo.