• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed

    that’s not true. but even if it were, you don’t have a monopoly on what may be considered necessary. a dairy farmer may say he needs to participate in any of the practices you find abhorrent to feed his family, and i wouldn’t tell him he’s wrong.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Causing unnecessary suffering isn’t cruel?

        it’s only cruel if the suffering is the intention of the practice. if we could remove the suffering, we would. so it’s not cruel, it’s indifferent.

        • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn’t need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again you made the fallacy of assuming something is necessary despite it being part of an unnecessary system.

        i did no such thing.