Before you kill an animal for food it has to be born and raised. So for meat, the ‘intent to kill life’ cannot be separated from the ‘intent to facilitate life’…
… unless we are talking about lab grown meat, where we have facilitated no life at all, and in fact, negated it altogether. This seems morally worse than the ‘intent to kill’.
I understand your point, but the point Joe made was that his direct killing of animals was not "worse" than buying meat, since the animal was killed anyway, which isolated makes sense.
But then he goes on to suggest that animals killed unintentionally (E.g. their habitat ruined) "therefore are also the same", but there I find intent to kill potentially troublesome.
You seem to talk about something slightly different. Also, Joe kills animals that he did not "intend to facilitate life" of, at least not directly, what then?
I got sidetracked. I think the unintended killing of mice, reptiles etc by habitat destruction in the name of arable food production is morally worse than intentional killing for meat.
In the latter you are preserving animals indefinitely (to periodically kill and eat them). In the former you are wiping animals out completely because they’re in your way.
Interesting! I wonder if this is as principled as you say. Would you feel the same about the difference between killing humans to eat them compared to eg normal agriculture?
("...as you say" I suppose you didn't say that, but I think you know what I mean). Normal agriculture reportedly ruins soil, which in theory probably will kill people/animals later.
Free range humans do pretty well. I don’t think I would be preserving anything😆
Don't have to be free range. The Azteks showed that. Part of my point was that intent to kill seems far more evil to the average person when it is intent to kill humans.
And would you do the same with a policy like not lowering a speed limit (can lead to economic wins, but very slightly more deaths) vs. intentionally killing people?
Would you feel the same way about say tobacco plants, which are not necessary for human survival, but many people think are part of what makes life pleasant?
Idk how I would apply it to every situation. I admit my sentiment is a bit of a knee jerk reaction to what I see as the growing safe & sanitised vegan vision of human animal relations
The plant based project in the vid breaks our symbiotic relationship with cattle, wipes out a bunch of mice and claims moral high ground because they didn’t ‘intentionally’ kill?
A project to switch azteks to eating pork "breaks their symbiotic relationship" with their prisoners, is sure to kill a lot of microorganisms and claims moral high ground becau....?
Mind you, your conclusion seems OK to me, I'm just not so sure you have perfect logical groundwork around it. :)
I guess that my philosophy on these matters is, "there are always more things to think about". I do not feel it makes sense to make any absolutist choices on any of these issues.
