this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
94 points (95.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8053 readers
117 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/almost-all-livestock-in-the-united-states-is-factory-farmed

Estimates are still quite high globally too. Around 94% of all globally farmed animals are factory farmed. 74% of all farmed land animals are factory farmed and virtually all farmed fish

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nsrxn@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 1 week ago (16 children)

it's been ages since I've seen someone trot out "name the trait" or ntt, so forgive me if I'm a bit rusty.

ntt is a form argument that devolves to the spectrum fallacy or line drawing fallacy. basically, it is clear that humans have a set of traits, and chickens have a set of traits, and we can create a human-chicken spectrum. being unable to point to which part of the spectrum you go from human to chicken or vice versa, being unable to draw a line, does not negate the fact that people are not chickens and chickens are not people.

so I won't be answering your direct question

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (8 children)

Not the person you are replying to, but that's not what the point of the name the trait question is about. It is not about distinguishing between species

Why are humans morally considered is not asking why humans are human. Asking why one doesn't morally consider chickens is not asking why chickens are chickens

It is about distinguishing between what matters to ethics. It's not a trait that makes them chickens vs humans. It's about a trait or set of traits that makes someone morally considered

Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration. Otherwise you are just saying that difference itself = justifying different ethical consideration, which is highly flawed. You could for instance, use that to say any group of humans are distinct in some way and thus deserve different moral consideration. Be it by gender, skin tone, etc.

[–] nsrxn@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Declaring that humans and chickens are distinct is not sufficient to say to they deserve radically different ethical consideration.

it is. ethics are a social construct developed by humans to help them understand correct action in human society. chickens are only relevant to the extent that it impacts how people relate to one another

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is rather circular reasoning. You are saying humans only matter because some humans say only humans matter

If we can just declare ethics excludes any group inherently because I said so, then that can lead to pretty bad conclusions

[–] nsrxn@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 6 days ago

not any group. nonhumans.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)