Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce
it is some sort of moral criteria - if they haven't reached a state of "sapiency", where I feel I'm in the wrong for killing them or at least encouraging them to be killed, I figger it's alright then...
|
But my question is, why is "sapiency" the deciding factor in whether or not an animal can be eaten? What is it about "sapiency" that should be preserved? Pigs are well known to be relatively intelligent. They have feelings and emotions. They can feel pain and suffer. They care for their young. I'm sure I could go on about how pigs are more than just unthinking machines that eat, sleep, and poop. Yet, we eat them almost without thinking.
So, for us to be okay with killing and eating them, all these things (many of which humans also show) must not be a deciding factor in whether or not we should eat them. I mean if killing and eating something that feels emotions isn't truly wrong, why should we have arrested
Jeffrey Dahmer? What particular aspect of "sapiency" is wrong to destroy, when it is okay to disregard emotions, the ability to suffer, life in general, etc when deciding whether or not to eat something?