This is duty based, or deontological ethical reasoning. It typically makes more sense to look at the consequences, because those can be weighed better. But we can also look at the other side when it comes to fairness:NindriIndri wrote: βSun Oct 15, 2017 5:44 am As for the moral part - my thinking is that cats were domesticated by people and I think it's unfair that they be left to their own devices just because people ditch them once they've grown tired of them.
Is it fair to the animals we have forced into captivity who are killed to make the food for cats? They never even had a chance, as in the wild, to escape and save their own lives.
These cats are feral, by one means or another they have returned to the wild. If they die because they failed at hunting that's just as "fair" as the wild animals who die because they weren't good at escaping the hunters or hiding.
It's just as unfair to interfere in that by feeding the cats animals we killed for them as it would be to kill the cats to save the animals they are hunting. The right answer seems to be not interfering.
Even feeding these cats vegan food during the winter would be interfering by holding them over and helping them hunt better after that, which is unfairly taking a side against the wild animals the cats are hunting in the spring.
There are a lot of potentially troubling implications in interfering in nature.
That's great, that would make a big difference on its own.NindriIndri wrote: βSun Oct 15, 2017 5:44 amI'll think about getting byproducts from the butcher and yes, I'll definitely skip the V word.