you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

The other extreme where only humans are off limits doesn't really make sense either, though. Forget about "pigs are fine, but not dogs and cats".

There's a lot of open ground for inquiry on how to judge what you should kill in some logical, self-consistent way. It's too much of a hot button for many people to bother, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    another idea is that we stop putting the importance on consciousness as the rule around the morality of it at least until we can all understand consciousness more truly.

    theres plenty of ideas such as sustainability, lower consumption, less harm to plants and animals (regardless of consiousness), less toiling of the earth, healthier body. these are all feasible and more important discussions to have around consumption that are backed up with facts and studies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    That's kind of an exotic approach. Normally, morality is built around the idea you shouldn't inflict suffering on others, and to suffer requires consciousness (or something similar).

    Sure, there's other reasons to be a vegetarian as well, like just your own health and saving money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I believe even plants have consciousness and that consciousness is a waveform

    And science hasn't really scraped the surface on any of this for any one to speak with certainties around what we should be doing around the topic of consciousness.

    so there's no real clean argument around that particular topic that will fit everyone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments