How is it any people cannot put themselves in that place with imagining? Even animals could identify with what would not be desirable. Humans should have the sensibility to know they would not want what the animals being used are put through, we can likewise choose to not have anything to do with that, and we can already find out ourselves that there are ways to be very healthy this way without products from animals. And the same amount of use of resources for it and contribution to damage to environments with loss of species does not need to be continued then. https://healthyaging.emory.edu/could-eating-30-plants-a-week-be-the-answer-to-better-health/
That sounds clean, but it assumes that animals and humans sit in the same moral category. A lot of people simply don’t grant that equivalence. They can fully imagine the suffering and still judge it differently because they see humans as having a higher moral status.
There’s also a leap from empathy to obligation(or similar is to ought). Humans routinely recognize suffering and still accept it under various tradeoffs. Medicine, construction, law enforcement, even wildlife management all involve harm that people wouldn’t personally want inflicted on themselves. The fact that someone can imagine pain doesn’t mean they conclude “this must never happen.” It means they decide whether that harm is justified within their own moral framework. In the case of livestock, many decide that food, culture, convenience, or nutrition justify it. It catered to their hollow.
Just look at guns, drugs and cars… And all the dead children. I digress.
Not all land can grow crops. A large share of grazing land is only usable through animals. Most livestock systems convert otherwise inedible biomass into food. On the other hand, industrial animal agriculture clearly has major negative and positive impacts. The reality isn’t a clean moral on-off-switch. It’s a messy optimization problem with mutual tradeoffs, and people naturally disagree on where the balance ought land, and naturally for whom the bill tolls.
Animals avoid suffering, but many also inflict it without moral hesitation(fight vs flight). Humans are perhaps the only ones trying to build any ethical systems at all, so disagreement is predictable. The presence of empathy doesn’t produce one universal conclusion, nor should it ever when considering the endless facets of those perceiving whatever this is.
Cheers.
The argument has always been precisely to re-examine what we believe is morally justifiable. It’s no surprise that someone who supports animal agriculture finds it morally plausible - it would be stranger if they didn’t find it morally plausible while continuing to support it. People make loads of arguments in favor for continuing to consume animal products, but the most revealing question is - what if all animal products tasted like sand? Does any of the claimed nutritional value arguments or tradition or w/e really feel well argued if you are defending something that both tastes incredibly bad, and is as harmful as animal agriculture is?
Not all land can indeed grow crops, but hysterically much more fertile land is wasted on animal agriculture. Pointing out marginal factors like they paint the whole picture is misleading.
Your thought experiment quietly assumes that if a motivation includes pleasure, it becomes morally suspect. Odd. That’s not how we treat most other domains. People accept environmental damage for travel, resource use for comfort, even risk to others in things like driving or gun ownership or cohabitation. It’s typically because those activities provide value beyond bare survival.
Again, you can argue animal agriculture crosses a line, but then you need to explain why this tradeoff is categorically different, not just say “what if it tasted bad.”
Because replacing animal products with plant products is so very easy. 🙂 I think of it as minimal effort for maximum difference. Concerning other domains where we also choose pleasure over consideration, I would argue the “other options” are not so readily available.
Your personal experience doesn’t generalize cleanly. Cost, access, cultural norms, cooking knowledge, food allergies, digestive tolerance, and even just time and mental bandwidth all matter. What feels like a small adjustment to one person can feel like a constant friction to someone else. And when something becomes daily friction, it stops being “minimal,” even if it looks trivial from the outside.
Other options are abundant. Now I’m just starting to think you’re full of … Something.
For most people diet is a very small part of their “footprint.” And I’d argue other domains have more alternatives and are more viable and would make a greater difference than diet accounts for in its entirely.
Again, none of the cost, access, cultural norms, digestive tolerances etc. would matter to people if animal products tasted like shit. People would not be making an argument “i eat this horrible product three times a day because it’s my culture”. They eat it because they like the taste. This conversation could be over and done with much faster if people admitted this. And what other options are we talking about? Also, for most people diet is a big part of their carbon footprint, health issues, not to mention the suffering of the animals. This is not deniable science, and if you disagree with this, then I’m sure no argument in the world could ever reach you.
No one is arguing meat doesn’t taste good. Are you okay? Vegan-brained?
“Undeniable science” + “no argument could reach you” isn’t a strong case… it’s a conversation ender. The cries of a closed mind before it retreats in defeat.
No, just that animals deserve some moral consideration.
Some decide that kicking dogs is a good way to exercise, doesn’t mean it’s a good justification. Especially when there are other options. Same with animal products, there are other options.
Sure but I prefer animals. Most of the meat is from hunting or butchering animals myself.
Sure, someone’s preference to exercise could be kicking animals. That doesn’t mean it’s a good justification to do so.