I think if you're going to post things on the internet you should have to build the device you're using to do that yourself. And write all the software needed to do it.
Or maybe it's silly to put arbitrary moral requirements on other people. If you think it's wrong to eat meat, sure whatever. But trying to set some arbitrary goalpost that you know isn't feasible to make it so something you already think is morally wrong to be extra morally wrong because it's hypocritical or whatever is kinda weird.
Not sure this is the best example becauss there is a similar issue there of phones being made via basically slavery, I hypocritically say typing on my Samsung phone (though looking into buying a fairphone next which is the best I can possibly do while still having the practical neccesity of a smartphone)
The difference there is though that I would have no moral problem with building the phone and writing the software, physically capable or not. I'm not saying people should need to physically be able to kill the animal all by themselves, just that they should be morally able to, if given a gun pointed at an animal's head, pull the trigger and be ok with that decision
My point is not to be the gatekeeper of what's right and wrong, my point is to force people to make those decisions themselves and to be morally consistent. If people are ok with killing animals then that's fine by me, the bit I don't like is the level of abstraction we have that means people don't have to think about the consequences of their choices too deeply
I think if you're going to post things on the internet you should have to build the device you're using to do that yourself. And write all the software needed to do it.
Or maybe it's silly to put arbitrary moral requirements on other people. If you think it's wrong to eat meat, sure whatever. But trying to set some arbitrary goalpost that you know isn't feasible to make it so something you already think is morally wrong to be extra morally wrong because it's hypocritical or whatever is kinda weird.
Not sure this is the best example becauss there is a similar issue there of phones being made via basically slavery, I hypocritically say typing on my Samsung phone (though looking into buying a fairphone next which is the best I can possibly do while still having the practical neccesity of a smartphone)
The difference there is though that I would have no moral problem with building the phone and writing the software, physically capable or not. I'm not saying people should need to physically be able to kill the animal all by themselves, just that they should be morally able to, if given a gun pointed at an animal's head, pull the trigger and be ok with that decision
My point is not to be the gatekeeper of what's right and wrong, my point is to force people to make those decisions themselves and to be morally consistent. If people are ok with killing animals then that's fine by me, the bit I don't like is the level of abstraction we have that means people don't have to think about the consequences of their choices too deeply