this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
53 points (87.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43791 readers
1525 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml
53
Who would you save between your cat and your worst enemy? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 6 months ago by atotayo@lemmy.zip to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I feel like you're taking a bit of a dissonant position here, no?

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?

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?

I'm fine with either answer. Either "eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people's dietary needs/preferences," or "vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable," but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 1 points 6 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.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

Either "eating meat is fine because animal life is less valuable than people's dietary needs/preferences," or "vegetarianism is the only moral option, as all life is equally valuable," but it seems to me like any answer in the middle is hypocrisy, no?

I dug into this more deeply in another response, but no. Life can be equally valuable and we can accept that evolution and history has led us to a place where we end life without feeling a sense of superiority over that life.

Imagine a poker game. You have been dealt a winning hand. You are incredibly confident of this and are correct to feel so. Are you a better person for winning that hand? Is this a signal that you're not only expected to take the money of the others at the table, but permitted to do so because you are a better person?

We are the species that was dealt a better hand. This puts us in a position of power. This does not make us "better", nor does it negate the value of those other lives, despite the position we find ourselves in. Yet we do, ultimately, get to collect as a result of that hand.