your version of the story leaves out some important facts like it doesn’t matter whether you put it in your cart because it’s already dead, and the person who killed it was already paid by somebody who wasn’t you.
That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it’s way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?
So while you are eating said chicken, you are thinking “I’m not responsible for what happened to this bird?”
Is it the same as roadkill to you? Like it just so happened to be dead and nearby?
How about this: if person A murders person B, and then sells the meat to person C to consume, are both persons A and C responsible for murder or just A? What if person C is in the room when person B is murdered and butchered, does that change the answer? What if person C lives in another country and the meat is shipped to them, any change then?
I’d ask you to honestly consider that instead of discounting it for replacing animals with humans.
your analogy is disanalagous to how people decide whether to buy meat entirely. even in the first case, though, of course their not responsible. the others, it’s not clear to me whether there is any other actual conspiracy. regardless, no such conspiracy exists in the grocery store.
The point of the the thought experiment is to allow you to view the situations without the biases you already have, as most people have been in a butcher shop which is the first situation I described, and most people have had food delivered to them from far away which is the second situation I described. Since those are normal things, your initial thought would likely be that they are normal and not murder.
If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.
In other words there is no eating a cooked dead chicken carcass without killing a chicken.
If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.
there was some ambiguity in how you phrased it whether the person buying even knew it was human meat. regardless, they are not responsible for the actions of other people in the past.
I really wish you could expand on that last bit “not responsible for actions of those in the past”.
To me it sounds like you are saying it goes like this:
Person kills animal and sends meat to store.
Another person goes to store and buys it.
And so since its in the past and a different person, person 2 shouldnt feel like they caused what person 1 did.
The reason it doesnt make sense to me is I see it like this:
Producer kills animal and sends meat to store.
Purchaser goes to store and buys it.
Producer reviews how many sold and sets that as their quota, proceeds to kill that many animals for sale, plus some extra in case of growth or supply chain issues, sends out to store.
Purchaser goes to store and buys it
Repeat steps 3 and 4.
Since the purchaser has an effect on the seller due to the unique relationship they have, if the purchaser feels there is a moral imperative to protect animals then they should come to the conclusion that if they stop buying meat then that will remove the incentive to kill animals that they are adding into the relationship.
It won’t stop all animals being killed, but it will result in less animals being killed had I chosen to continue eating meat.
Well thats about as neutral as you can get on the issue, I can respect that, and I dont think your perspective actually does drive animal deaths.
Do you carry this perspective just for yourself mainly or do you think that it would be better if more people felt similarly as you?
Its an odd question but I ask because sometimes I struggle between an idea that works for me personally but would be mayhem if everyone else thought that way too.
If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.
If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market.
why do you tihnk both these sentences are true, and how would you go about trying to disprove either of them?
That’s not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.
Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.
Yes increasing awareness amongst our social groups about the benefits of vegan diets and the detriments of meat based diets. Most people want to be healthy.
The meat industry has a large effect on pollution a well, and affects the environment in many ways in water and on land.
Everyone’s not vegan until they decide to be, I was a meat eat for 30 years before I made the decision, I understand its not easy or quick.
Some people just need to live in proximity with a vegan so they can learn by watching. The general public still has a lot of animosity towards vegans and especially vegan activists (and environmental activists as well, when they bring up meat). Sort of similar to how proximity dispels racism in a lot of ways.
if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken.
Removed by mod
your version of the story leaves out some important facts like it doesn’t matter whether you put it in your cart because it’s already dead, and the person who killed it was already paid by somebody who wasn’t you.
That is pretty irrelevant. You purchasing the product signals a certain demand for it, that demand will help determine how much product is requested in the future, there is a cascading effect all the way up the supply chain. Sure an additional chicken might not be bred just because you purchased a chicken, it’s way more abstract than that. Maybe if a hundred more chickens are bought then a hundred more chickens will be bred as replacements plus extra to account for growth and failed product (dead or sick chickens). And if you were one of the hundred people who purchased a chicken you can be seen as one hundredth responsible for at least a hundred chickens which is the same as being responsible for the 1+ chicken. Do you think if nobody purchased chickens that they would just keep stocking the shelves?
this is not causal. someone decides whether or how much of a product to purchase. they have free will. i am not responsible for their decision.
So while you are eating said chicken, you are thinking “I’m not responsible for what happened to this bird?”
Is it the same as roadkill to you? Like it just so happened to be dead and nearby?
How about this: if person A murders person B, and then sells the meat to person C to consume, are both persons A and C responsible for murder or just A? What if person C is in the room when person B is murdered and butchered, does that change the answer? What if person C lives in another country and the meat is shipped to them, any change then?
I’d ask you to honestly consider that instead of discounting it for replacing animals with humans.
your analogy is disanalagous to how people decide whether to buy meat entirely. even in the first case, though, of course their not responsible. the others, it’s not clear to me whether there is any other actual conspiracy. regardless, no such conspiracy exists in the grocery store.
The point of the the thought experiment is to allow you to view the situations without the biases you already have, as most people have been in a butcher shop which is the first situation I described, and most people have had food delivered to them from far away which is the second situation I described. Since those are normal things, your initial thought would likely be that they are normal and not murder.
If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.
In other words there is no eating a cooked dead chicken carcass without killing a chicken.
there was some ambiguity in how you phrased it whether the person buying even knew it was human meat. regardless, they are not responsible for the actions of other people in the past.
I really wish you could expand on that last bit “not responsible for actions of those in the past”.
To me it sounds like you are saying it goes like this:
And so since its in the past and a different person, person 2 shouldnt feel like they caused what person 1 did.
The reason it doesnt make sense to me is I see it like this:
Since the purchaser has an effect on the seller due to the unique relationship they have, if the purchaser feels there is a moral imperative to protect animals then they should come to the conclusion that if they stop buying meat then that will remove the incentive to kill animals that they are adding into the relationship.
It won’t stop all animals being killed, but it will result in less animals being killed had I chosen to continue eating meat.
that’s pretty apt, yea.
Well thats consistent at least. Would you care much if companies stopped selling meat?
i doubt it. i have drunk a lot of soylent and huel in my time. i’m open to all kinds of food, i just buy what’s at the corner of Cheap and Convenient
Well thats about as neutral as you can get on the issue, I can respect that, and I dont think your perspective actually does drive animal deaths.
Do you carry this perspective just for yourself mainly or do you think that it would be better if more people felt similarly as you?
Its an odd question but I ask because sometimes I struggle between an idea that works for me personally but would be mayhem if everyone else thought that way too.
If you don’t eat chicken nobody is going to swoop in and eat all the chicken you don’t eat. However if a farmer or farming corporation decides to stop harvesting chickens then it’s almost certain some entity will swoop in to replace them in the market. So acting like the consumer here is not one of the if not the most important part in this causal chain is just naive.
why do you tihnk both these sentences are true, and how would you go about trying to disprove either of them?
there is no causal chain.
do you have a plan to get no one to purchase chickens?
That’s not important. I was illustrating that clearly if nobody ate chicken nobody would harvest chickens for food. Unless you think that the same amount of chickens will be harvested until the very last human gives up chicken then you have to acknowledge that the individual consumer does make a difference.
no, i don’t
Yes increasing awareness amongst our social groups about the benefits of vegan diets and the detriments of meat based diets. Most people want to be healthy.
The meat industry has a large effect on pollution a well, and affects the environment in many ways in water and on land.
Everyone’s not vegan until they decide to be, I was a meat eat for 30 years before I made the decision, I understand its not easy or quick.
Some people just need to live in proximity with a vegan so they can learn by watching. The general public still has a lot of animosity towards vegans and especially vegan activists (and environmental activists as well, when they bring up meat). Sort of similar to how proximity dispels racism in a lot of ways.
good luck.
i’m not responsible for others decisions at all.
Removed by mod
this is handwaving, not evidence for your position
Removed by mod
I haven’t made an argument. I’m rebutting yours. this, too, is not evidence for your position
Removed by mod
iphones were made before anyone ever bought one. that’s how linear time works.
Removed by mod
it’s a legitimate objection unless you can show causation
Removed by mod
animals were killed for food long before money. there is no reason to think it will ever stop
Removed by mod
you don’t know what I need
Removed by mod
do you have a plan to achieve this? I’ll help. let me know when I’m the last one.
Removed by mod
I’m being earnest