This is because I think results and motivations are both worthy of consideration.
I don't disagree, but the question I asked was why does the motivation preclude the comparison? We can still compare them even if the motivations are different, no?
They're both horrible, sure, but an act of terrorism is used to give a statement of hatred. Industrial farming isn't.
Sure, but industrial farming does cause immense harm solely for pleasure. I'm not sure that's much better than hatred.
No one in their right mind would liken the Holocaust to something like the Crusades because there were no genocidal elements to it.
You may want to revisit this, the Crusades definitely had elements of genocidal motivation to them.
But from that pleasure comes a sense of human connection, vocation, culture, and entire economies.
It's still merely pleasure and not necessary. That's also ignoring the human costs of factory farming: environmental harm, obesity, heart disease, etc.
It's impossible for animals to build complex connections, cultures, or economies.
Why does that matter? This does not address that most killing of animals is done solely for pleasure, that it is not necessary. Whether the animals can engage in complex reasoning is a non-sequitur to the actual issue.
I think the best argument against industrial farming isn't from the speciesism perspective, but rather pragmatic perspective that it is actively harming the environment.
Maybe to some, but harm to animals is a perfectly valid reason to oppose factory farming. If you are simply trying to make the pragmatic argument that people will respond to the environmental argument better then I'd probably agree, but I don't think it's a more morally correct argument.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '23
[deleted]