• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        cruelty would be inflicting pain for its own sake. in so-called factory farming, the pain is still only incidental. that is, if it were possible to create the same outputs with no additional inputs, and that process had no pain, there is no reason why a factory farming operation would prefer the painful process. so it is not cruel, it is only indifferent.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn’t matter? It’s awfully convenient that we don’t have to care about cruelty when it’s inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn’t you want that?

          If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            cruelty is intentional. think of battlefield amputation: it hurts, but the pain isn’t the point. the pain is only incidental.

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don’t care doesn’t mean these farms can exist outside morality.

              Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.

              You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animals. They are not analogous

                • naught@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don’t slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn’t mean they are free from blood.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    You have agency over your choices.

                    sure, but my choices don’t determine industry practices

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

            you can see this is just an appeal to emotion, right?

            • naught@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?

              By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it’s inherent.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                By your logic, dog meat farms are fine – amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it is inherent.

                not quite but very close. the suffering is not cruelty because it is inherent, and suffering alone does not change the morality.

                • naught@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    This is a semantic argument that ignores reality

                    no, it’s not. but this is a thought terminating cliche