• SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    There is no gray area.

    Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?

    If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?

    • the_q@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.

      • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?

        Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.