Trifecta

ETHICS

We've all taken Ethics classes: they always end the same way, situations are subjective and there is no overarching principle than can be universally applied to all situations. Sometimes it's taken to the extreme—there is no right and wrong. One may agree with that entirely except for when it's applied to Veganism.

PROS of Eating Animals

CONVENIENCE

ENTERTAINMENT

PREFERENCE

*please note, none are necessary

CONS of Eating Animals

DESTROYS THE PLANET

KILLS ANIMALS

MAKES YOU SICK

STARVES HUMANS

Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth.

— UNITED NATIONS

RIGHT and WRONG

Suffering is a normal and natural part of life. In striving for our highest goals we must push ourselves to the point of suffering if we want to achieve them. We may need to induce suffering on others for their good, or for the greater good. When it is necessary, suffering is acceptable; it is normal and natural. When the pros outweigh the cons, suffering should be taken as the cost of doing business...

...but when suffering is unnecessary, when it is unjustified and un-consented. Man does not have the right to impart it on his or her fellow man nor does man have the right to impart it on animals. When there are no pros other than: convenience, preference, or boredom–there is no room for debate, no question, or subjectivity. It's wrong.

 

Imparting unnecessary suffering is wrong.

As you will recall, from the HEALTH article, eating animals is Bad For Ya. If it were positive we would have to reconsider all of this, if it were neutral, the ethics would still show us that it's not entirely necessary. But, since it's actually negative, this whole thing is a real scandal.

TLDR;

Killing animals and starving humans is unnecessary and is therefore objectively wrong, without any emotion even factored in. Plus you feel bad.

p w

INFORMATION

Terms & Conditions

©powsimian.com