I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.
Like I said, I disagree that it’s an absurd starting point. Animal research applies animal assent rules as a consent analog all the time as part of ethical research.
If you want to get into an argument about whether or not it’s absurd, we can do that. But we’re both clear where we stand and we can agree to disagree as well.
If we can’t agree on the meaning of “animal consent” in this context, I think there will too much semantic friction to have a fruitful discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering.
I think your original comment indicating it’s absurd to discuss consent in this context is misguided. I think it’s entirely appropriate to discuss the ethics of how and when we inflict suffering on other animals.
sure. but if the motivation is based on the consent of livestock, it’s starting from absurdity. we can have a reasonable discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering without invoking an absurdity.
Like I said, I disagree that it’s an absurd starting point. Animal research applies animal assent rules as a consent analog all the time as part of ethical research.
If you want to get into an argument about whether or not it’s absurd, we can do that. But we’re both clear where we stand and we can agree to disagree as well.
If we can’t agree on the meaning of “animal consent” in this context, I think there will too much semantic friction to have a fruitful discussion about the ethics of inflicting animal suffering.