• SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It’s not an arbitrary goal, because in order to provide dairy to everyone, these practices must happen (when we don’t need to provide dairy to everyone). I guess I could clarify that rather than it being a necessary component of dairy production to kill calves and cattle, for example, it’s a necessary component of dairy production on a scale to feed our planet, or even any significant human populations. For all intents and purposes as they apply to most people, and when considering the industry as a whole, these practices are necessary for dairy production, while dairy production itself isn’t necessary.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      it is arbitrary: there is no reason to believe any particular dairy operation couldn’t keep it’s calves out of the veal industry.

      • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You’re focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal. Or artificially inseminating mothers and forcefully impregnating them, selectively breeding them to overproduce milk which wrecks their bodies. And then killing them at the end of a life of extreme suffering, still at a relatively young age. It doesn’t make a difference to the fact that they’re cruel, and necessary parts of large scale dairy farming, which is unnecessary as a whole.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re focusing on one aspect of dairy farming when there are a number of ethically unsound practices such as stealing the babies from their mothers and killing them for beef, even if not veal.

          this is not inherently unethical. i can’t think of a single ethical system that would say this is immoral.

          • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            So causing a mother to cry for her missing baby isn’t unethical? I’m not sure what ethical system you’re referring to that would determine whether something is ethical. By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not sure what ethical system you’re referring to that would determine whether something is ethical.

              literally, any. pick one.

              • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Pretty much every ethical framework that exists would find that causing needless harm and suffering to animals is unethical. Kicking a dog when you don’t need to is unethical. Similarly, stealing a baby from their mother, restricting them in a crate, and killing them, causing the mother extreme emotional anguish, is unethical; causing her pain from overproducing milk is unethical; given that dairy farming is itself unnecessary.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Kicking a dog when you don’t need to is unethical.

                  but we’re not talking about kicking dogs. we’re talking about producing food.

                  • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    No, we’re talking about producing a particular kind of food that isn’t necessary. Kicking a dog isn’t necessary and neither is exploiting cows for their milk and causing them and their calves suffering and ultimately killing them at young ages. Both are harmful practices which can be avoided.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              By all accounts, causing suffering to an animal is cruel when it’s not needed

              that’s not true. but even if it were, you don’t have a monopoly on what may be considered necessary. a dairy farmer may say he needs to participate in any of the practices you find abhorrent to feed his family, and i wouldn’t tell him he’s wrong.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Again you made the fallacy of assuming something is necessary despite it being part of an unnecessary system.

                  i did no such thing.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Causing unnecessary suffering isn’t cruel?

                  it’s only cruel if the suffering is the intention of the practice. if we could remove the suffering, we would. so it’s not cruel, it’s indifferent.

                  • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    An action is cruel if it causes unnecessary suffering, period. The lack of an intention to cause suffering is irrelevant if the action does cause suffering and doesn’t need to happen, and we are aware of the harm it does. Which we are. Continuing to engage in the practice is therefore willingly causing needless suffering, which is unethical.

          • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            It’s not cruel to cause (ultimately) unnecessary suffering to an animal? And that’s your opinion, remember. Not a fact.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              cruelty would be doing it just to cause suffering. suffering is incidental, not the point. if we produced everything using the exact same processes without suffering, would you find that acceptable? i think everyone would say that’s preferrential.

              • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Raping someone not to cause them suffering but to gain something out of it is (pleasure, or a baby) is unethical. Something unnecessary that causes suffering doesn’t need to be done for the express purpose of causing a being suffering in order to be unethical.

                  • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    That’s funny, notice I never said artificial insemination was rape. I guess that’s something you assumed given that it is very comparable to rape, and is undoubtedly a sexual violation, regardless of its intention (which is ultimately unnecessary). And it’s not a veterinary procedure, it’s a farming practice with the end goal of producing a product to sell that the animal is exploited for.

                    I was using rape as an example of a practice that causes suffering and which is unethical despite the fact that causing suffering isn’t the motivation for doing it (necessarily), in response to you trying to argue that something that causes suffering isn’t unethical if suffering isn’t the intention. If something causes unnecessary suffering, it’s unethical, regardless of the intention.