58
Is it morally wrong to be non-vegetarian?
(literature.cafe)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
58 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
40133 readers
1290 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Take into account that one of the basis of my theory is that animals have no rights per se. When thinking about it it seemed illogical as it's impossible to police, control, or even tu conceive. How could you give rights to some invertebrate living 50 foot underground with a lifespans of 3 days that won't even see a human in that time?
My ideology thinks about humans. I'm human. Society is form by humans. Humans are the only rational being on earth. We can work with humans.
My definition of cruelty and why avoid it is not based on reduce harm to animals, I don't care about that. It's based on reduce harm on humans. That's why the intention and the enjoyment of causing suffering is the thing to avoid. Because that's what create "bad" humans, "cruel" humans. Humans that will hurt other humans. That's the only reason why I think that cruelty (towards anything, animal or not, even alive or not) is to be avoided. Just as a way to create a better society for humans.
As long as humans are "good" and not hurting other humans I don't really care if animals suffer. They are "lucky" that cruelty towards animals is proven to make humans worse. But just farming and managing livestock for human consumption has not been proven to do that, as there's not cruel intentions in it. Just intentions to feed ourselves.
That is where we fundamentally disagree.
That's not entirely true though: The Psychological Impact of Slaughterhouse Employment: A Systematic Literature Review
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358322559_Is_a_Plant-Based_Diet_Associated_with_Relationship_Aggression
Plant based diet has actually shown some relationship data with some forms of aggressiveness.
Study proposes normalize the data according to childhood trauma, but even then it would only show that plant based diet and omnivore diet have no differences.
And while there are also papers which relation eating meat qith aggressiveness. Most aggressiveness linked with diet is usually related to red meat consumption in excess. Not with all meat, neither with a balanced consumption of red meat.
Anyway, all those are barely noticeable. Not worth the benefits of people being able to chose their own diet.
As said the fundamental difference in philosophies, is the consideration of the existence of "animal rights" or not.
In a selfish tone, we concede all human, human rights because it's the path that leads to better live for one self. If you discriminate another human that human could have reasons to hurt you (legitimate reasons) It's proven that egalitarian societies work better. With animals this does not happen. Animal attitude towards humans is unchanged if we give them rights or not. It's not like a mosquito is going to stop bitting me because I consider it a first class citizen. Animal contribution towards my well-being will be the same, I eat them or not. From a practical point of view, giving animals rights achieve no goals neither for me or humanity as a whole. That's why I only concede humans rights, because giving human rights do make humans better, thus makes my life better.
this is great. have you read Why Kant Animals Have Rights? by Alex Howe
No, but it looks interesting I will add it to my reading list. Thanks!