Naming the trait (but veganism is still best) |
Sources for stats I mentioned:
15% GHG from animal agriculture (pg 13):
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf
Moral dissagreement (survey of philosophers):
https://philpapers.org/surveys/result...
I made a mistake in the text slide at 3:59. The number 4 contributor is pork, not chicken. Here's the source on that: https://skepticalscience.com/animal-a...
The guy who started this challenge, "Ask Yourself": / @askyourself
I forgot to mention in the video what happens when you take away the trait from humans, so here's that:
Taking it from all humans, yea that would permit (but not positively motivate/obligate/necessitate) their killing, like I said I don't believe humans have inherent moral value, only instrumental. For a specific human incapable, it comes down to consequentalism and the fact that a generally well-functioning society is necessary to facilitate ethical pursuit. A generally well-functioning society is hard to have if you allow the integral members, the humans, to be killed haphazardly. Also, we are emotional creatures and our abilities to seek ethical truth would be compromised if people were being killed left and right. This emotional component is a reason why I would go so far as to say animals do have some instrumental moral value in their non-suffering, and that in an ideal world they would suffer minimally.
~~
If you agree with me, great. If you disagree, better!
I am on a quest for truth and it would be absurd to assume I have anything close to everything right. Please discuss your differences with me!
See you next video! :)
Seek truth | No idea is sacred