Hendrix and StephenZA saying - Given that we live in cities, we can minimize harm to animals by changing some of our habits and that's what my personal morality says we should be thinking about doing.
I don't think I spoke anything about cities or even animal rights here... Read through my posts, I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with Hendrix regarding his views on animals, I did use his argument illustratively, when trying to answer a question regards 'what is better', with Ikki. I was pointing out he was not contradicting himself. What I will add is that I don't think cities have anything to do with animals directly, maybe consequentially, like many things that have unintended consequences, good and bad.
No, it's just straightforward logic. Someone who doesn't care if whole species are wiped out does not get to lecture someone else about not eating animals because of compassion.
His pragmatism is contradictory because his reasoning is based on compassion for animal lives. You can't call out utility as bad when in essence his pragmatism is also based on utility. He obviously doesn't object to technology and living in cities, so what makes him compassionate is just his arbitrary barometer which conveniently leaves out his own uncompassionate lifestyle.
What's better? Keeping their species alive, even if we eat them, or killing them off altogether by altering their habitats? This is not something you can simply wipe your hands of and there is no defined aim to go towards. If my position is keeping the status quo, so is his.
You haven't answered my question either: Better compared to what and who considers what is better?
E.g.: Since we have advanced technology, the fact we no longer even need to eat meat, the awareness that because something is an animal does not mean we can not improve those animals live and consider if we should continue to behave in the manner we have always behaved.... there is many arguments for changing many societal issues/ideas, won't be done overnight and there is merits and counter arguments.
"But this is the way it is" is not a counter argument to any attempt to improve society, it is an acceptance of current life without thought to improve or move forward as a society, it is a non- and lack of thought.
Our environment and our intellect is also advanced to the point that we don't need to live in cities, so your point falls at that hurdle. If your ultimate aim is to keep animals alive then both aims are wrong and it is even arguable that consuming animals is better than destroying whole species.
You also didn't argue for whom? I think the animals would rather us go back to living as tribal nomads as well as us not eating them. The argument is not 'this is the way it is". It is that your aim is inconsistent and indeterminable.
You asked me for an example of how we could possibly improve earlier, be better, that was the point of my previous posts. I was neither agreeing or disagreeing with Hendrix regarding his views on animals, I was using his argument illustratively. I was pointing out he was not contradicting himself, he was being idealist but also pragmatic (which do not contradict). Your response is not an argument, it is "you are wrong!" because I disagree and dont tell me what is better. And my responses were not inconsistent or indeterminable, you don't even know what my thoughts on the subject regarding animals are...
Yes, someone can determine their own moral persuasions for lessening this harm but pretending as if there is a widely consistent and accepted way to do that is nonsense. The only consistent point is that we all, one way or another, harm animals because ultimately we do not give them human rights and use them for our own aims.
Calling out someone for not being "better" is simply nonsense. You are determining what is better, not the animals and not anyone else.
I have consistently talked about society trying to become better, and sometimes (when talking 'rights' earlier in the thread) what will make it better or if we are even heading in the right direction. I have not stated if anybody is better. No my aim is to try have a discussion. Your aim is not to have the discussion. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on how society can improve. I've disagreed with Hendrix before, I've disagreed with a number of posters. What we have managed to do is put our argument and points across with a discussion, whether we convinced each other of the arguments we made or not.
What you do is 3 classic misdirects and logical fallacies....(1) Special pleading (changing the goal posts); (2) black or white (when you think that only 2 possibilities exist) and (3) beg the question (circular logic).
What I have personally asked in this thread, is should we continue living in the same way as we have in the past, or is there a better way particularly as our technology and understanding advances? Rather than just keep things as they are... it is called progress and I'm definitely for progress, particularly progress of thought. What I am not in favour of is no thought and disregarding of arguments because it does not fit a persons view point, and/or it makes people have to change the way they think and do things.
