• @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Just out of interest, what if we make it a (not-human) animal instead of a human? Or, what if we make it trillions of animals every year. What about a world that doesn’t require it but still includes mass amounts of animal sacrifice unnecessarily? That’s the world we’re in right now 😂

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          But it shouldn’t. Our empathy with other humans all boils down to knowing their ability to suffer. And science today agrees, that most animals are able to suffer and feel pain just like us. We really should include them into our circle of moral consideration and thankfully more and more people already do

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            Empathy is not rational. It’s more based on ability to relate to others experience. We are more empathic to people closer in our life and to people who made similar experiences as we. The same goes for animals, we have much more empathy towards pets and animals we perceive as intelligent. But it would be nice if we expanded our empathy - but first it need to include all humans and even that is quite the large asking.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      I agree. It would be practical and coldhearted, not moral.

      It’s also a fake question because there is no situation where torturing someone makes the world a better place.

    • @Lmaydev
      link
      111 months ago

      I mean the “first world” is built entirely on the sacrifices of the rest of the world. People live in unimaginably horrible conditions so that we can consume and be free.