= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Salemicus comments on When should an Effective Altruist be vegetarian? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (81)
Yes, I view humans as substantially different from chickens and relate to them in a very different way. I view this as a strength of my position, not a weakness.
You should have started by describing your interpretation of what the word "flourish" means. I don't think it's a standard one (any links to prove the opposite?). For now this thread is going nowhere because of disagreements on definitions.
One of the things I hate most about this website is the people who love to claim that ordinary usages of English words are somehow non-standard or obscure.
Do you see anything about "a life worth living"?
Do you think factory-farmed animals grow and develop in a healthy or vigorous way, especially as the result of a particularly congenial environment?
I'm not sure what you mean by "factory-farmed," but cows, sheep, pigs and free-range chickens seem healthy and vigorous. I've never been inside a battery-farm or a veal pen, but I'll grant arguendo that those animals aren't healthy or vigorous. But that's an argument for eating free-range chicken, not for vegetarianism.
Does it matter? He has established that he does not think their happiness is important. It's clear you two care about two different things. There is no point in further establishing what he means by "flourish".