Woofsie wrote:However I don't think the argument that "we already do other bad stuff, so it's okay to do this particular bad thing" is very good. Having already killed 20 people doesn't make killing 5 more people okay.
Of course. That wasn't the claim. The claim was that you (again, not you personally) already do something worse without seeing anything wrong with it, so your two moral positions are logically inconsistent.
In other words, the following positions are all reasonable:
- Animal research and meat consumption (for fun) are both wrong.
- Animal research and meat consumption are both just fine.
- Animal research is OK, because it's important. Eating meat for fun is wrong.
The following position is silly if you value the progress of science more than your immediate enjoyment:
- Animal research is wrong, but it's OK to eat meat for enjoyment.
Woofsie wrote:If you were to consider this particular case on its own, without putting it into "perspective", would you still not see anything wrong with it?
Value judgements are all about perspective. I don't know how to go about making a decision like this in isolation. Are you asking me what decision I'd make if I'd never been exposed to the concept of eating animals? Because I don't really know how to answer that.
Woofsie wrote:(Honestly I have to wonder how you can even eat meat while acknowledging that it's only for fun and that huge amounts of torture and death are required for it.. but I think that is too far off-topic).
Feel free to start a relevant thread; I'd be glad to explain. I'm assuming you're vegetarian, by the way? If not, you must have some digestive condition that requires you to eat meat to stay healthy.
(EDIT: from another thread, I see that you are vegan. OK, so your position is one of the logically consistent options outlined above.)