Author | Lightnews

Being different doesn't mean the difference is morally relevant.

A white man has white skin and a black man has black skin. That's a difference. But it's a morally irrelevant one, and wrong to discriminate on that basis.

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

"because race is a category that includes all white people and the others don't"
- a white supremacist

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

There you go. You just pick the one that's convenient (of that feels right) to discriminate against, like a racist or sexist would.

2

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

Oh so it's the amount of differences?

Would it be okay to be racist if black people had a ton of differences with white people, then? Is that the "relevant" metric?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

The only difference is the category.

What is the relevant difference between the categories?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

How is it any more relevant than race or religion? If you can't explain why it's relevant, then it's arbitrary. Let's see.

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

Yes? Species are different, religions are different, skin colors are different. Is that a reason to discriminate one against the other?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

The moral agency? We covered that, and you still wouldn't harm a human baby, despite not having any.

In other words, the only thing that truly matters to you is being human. Which you admitted.

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

How is that a false equivalence?

You're claiming somebody is more valuable than somebody else by virtue of being human.

A racist claims that somebody is more valuable than somebody else by virtue of being white.

How is that any different, besides the category itself?

2

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

Just because it keeps growing overall (and is predicted to keep growing) doesn't mean it hasn't had an impact. It's just so astronomically widespread that even hundreds of thousands of animals won't make a chart like that budge.

But for all these individual animals, it's their entire lives.

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

Yep, that would be very racist of me. Speciesism is the same mindset, just with another arbitrary category. Like sexism, etc.

2

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

And my words have nothing to do with an appeal to nature, which you'd know if you had read the link.

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

"nope, just being white is good enough for me"

2

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

You didn't read that link, did you? An appeal to nature is saying something is good because it's natural. How is that in any way close to what I've been saying?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

There you go. Essentially because they're part of the same group as you do. Now tell me, how is that any less arbitrary than any other group, e.g.:
- because they're part of the same race
- because they're part of the same religion
- because they're part of the same gender
?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

You know what supply & demand is, right?

1

Eating animals sounds 100% sane btw @mansbestmeat.bsky.social · Mar 4

Yes. So? The relevant difference is "being part of the human species"?

1