• WillFord27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s hilarious how lemmy users generally think of themselves as left wing but refuse to admit that veganism is both morally and sustainably the better option

        • pafu@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Veganism isn’t so much a “dietary preference” as a way of life that recognizes animals as sentient beings and aims to minimize their suffering as much as possible (i.e. it’s not only about not eating them).

          That aside: In my experience, giving a shit about the well-being of others, regardless of race or species, isn’t exactly common on the political right.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        See, there’s that religion creeping in again.

        Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.

        • Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.

          Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.

        • oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want

          edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But you see, this time it’s inconvenient to me personally, so I will defend my habits and fight for them to never change even if it means suffering to others, even if the evidence that is harmful are obvious and out there. What do you mean “definition of conservatism”?