Veganism – Life Loving or Cruelty Free ?

[VGnizm]

-Ok that too but I intended to highlight that self preservation is just as much a moral responsibility as would be preserving the interests of others. The case of those who would suffer for the death of a dear one.

[DarlBundren]

-Ok that too but I intended to highlight that self preservation is just as much a moral responsibility as would be preserving the interests of others. The case of those who would suffer for the death of a dear one.

It depends on whether they are interested in living or not though. If I find a wounded soldier and they beg me to put them out of their misery, I would consider it to be unethical not to grant them that wish.

[VGnizm]

-well we can argue that putting an end to misery is a form of self preservation.

[DarlBundren]

What do you mean by self preservation?

[VGnizm]

-it is following in the line of doing that which is in the best self interest. Basically preserving a self from being negatively impacted. Something like that.

[DarlBundren]

And you would agree that it would be the right thing to do?

[VGnizm]

-so far I agree only to arguing

[DarlBundren]

[VGnizm]

-tomorrow I will open a topic and try to approach this life energy subject from some other angles because I feel it merits more analysis. My personal observations in life have not always found linear scientific explanations and so it might be interesting to have input from others. Simple example is the common belief in 'green fingers'

[VGnizm]

- DarlBundren and all !

The person from the French Forum has replied in French to the questions asked here and i am translating and posting here that response as it is directed to the questions asked here.

----
https://vegeweb.org/veganisme-life-loving-ou-sans-cruaute-t22175.html

Provided by https://translate.google.com/#fr/en/

I have seen the question on the English-speaking forum, I will try to answer:

I do not think it is immoral not to give life to a sentient being when one could do it. To do so can be considered as a positive act, but not doing so seems to me to be a morally neutral act, at the very most egoistic if one has the opportunity to give a good life to an individual and that one does not do it, But not immoral. Asking this question forces me to think that I might never have existed, but I think the simplest answer is that I did not have a say or personal interest until my brain was enough Developed during my mother's pregnancy and so I can not blame my parents for having the right of life or non-life on me at the time (or only a posteriori, but for me Past is the past).

But if one decides to give life to this individual, he will have personal interests and it is appropriate for others to respect them, notably not to kill him. I really want to believe that a cow brought into the world and destined for slaughter at five years may have lived a life that will be worth living, but it will not negate the fact That she will continue to live on the day of her slaughter, no matter that she was destined for it and that she would not have been born without this destiny. In other words, when the scheduled day of slaughter comes, the decision to kill the cow will be a posteriori decision that has little to do with the present moment.

In other words, bringing the cow into the world for young culling can be seen as positive a priori, but this "prophecy" will only be an unnecessary violence, hence negative a posteriori, when the birth of the cow is part Of the past and will therefore have an interest in continuing to enjoy life: it is because it was decided to slaughter the cow at the age of five that she came into the world but to change her mind after her Would save it. "I will bring a cow to life, provided I kill it at five. I bring her into the world ... but now that I have brought her into the world she has her own interests so it would be a crime to kill her now! In the first case, the right of life and non-life is given to an individual who is not yet born and on which it is not immoral to do so; in the second case, it is done on a being Already felt born, whose interests must not be harmed.

My conclusion would be that it is morally right to have a cow born with the intention of killing her five years later, less the part "with the intention of killing her five years later", because once she is Born of this original intention is not a pretext to kill her ... which makes a contradiction "it is ethical provided to change opinion along the way" and I concedes it does not answer Exactly to the question.

I consider the life of an individual as something important and not neutral because I assume that sentient beings give value to their own existence, which makes it something intrinsically positive. If I were given the choice right away, I would rather stay alive than die without fear or suffering. I suppose it is theoretically possible for a sentient being to be totally indifferent to whether or not to exist, in which case the killing would not go against his interests, but I do not think that is the case for the Cow; There are also cases in which the individual suffers so much that he would prefer to die rather than have to endure his present situation, but I think that if he could he would still heal to be able to enjoy his own life again .

In conclusion, I try to put myself at the point of view of each individual cow and ask me what I would personally prefer. It is not because the system under which I was born kills the cows at five years does not mean that I would rather not be spared this fate. (Even if I am forced to anthropomorphize the cow in this sentence because in reality it knows nothing about the system, but it does not change anything in the interest of not dying.) Hence my explanation To the fact that I am against the institutionalization of the killing of relatively young animals, because those who are born have much to lose.

As to the question: is it always immoral to kill the cow, I would say that the cow sees its life as precious to her and that to withdraw her is the greatest harm that could be done to her (besides making her so miserable and A cost that must absolutely be taken into account in such a decision, as well as the other factors such as her remaining life expectancy (thus what she would have to lose personally), food that Becomes so rare and difficult to share that having a mouth to feed (and a large bundle of meat on the way) would be something that is considerably positive for the community, or feeding carnivorous animals that also Own existence. But I do not consider that a "prophecy" of the kind "it was said that one would kill her five years after her birth and the fateful day has arrived" has its weight to bring to the scales.

Oh and it's funny, the person who assumes I'm a girl: P

By Canastenard

-------------------------