Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces methane emissions by 80%

Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by mmm_grayons on Thursday September 24, 2020 @06:14PM (#24584301)

No, I seem to not be communicating my thoughts properly. My moral framework is, "killing animals to eat is okay." I have no issues with it. My preference is to keep my pet alive because I do not need him for food and I like him better as a pet. I didn't say I wouldn't eat him: I would have no moral issues killing him for food, though I probably wouldn't much like it. If not for the fact that animals that die of natural causes aren't very tasty, I'd probably eat him when he died.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by three_legs on Thursday September 24, 2020 @09:38PM (#24585729)

> I would have no moral issues killing him for food, though I probably wouldn't much like it.

You wouldn't much like the taste, or the act of it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by three_legs on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:23PM (#24586276)

So you have no emotional attachment at all to your dog? What benefit then do you get from your dog?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Australia to produce seaweed cattle feed that reduces met... by mmm_grayons on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:55PM (#24586423)

I'm saying that an emotional attachment doesn't affect whether I believe it's moral to kill him. It causes me to place a higher value on my dog such that I value him more alive as a pet than dead as food. Were I starving, I'd value him more dead as food. This value doesn't change whether or not it's moral to kill him.

As an analogue, I might have a car I like. The car could be worth more to me than its fair market value because of an emotional attachment, and that may mean I prefer not to sell it. If I'm in dire need of money, however, I'd probably sell it anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]