Isn’t it hard to do the former without dipping into the latter?
If you are to protect animals, then something or someone has to be doing them harm. Without judging those as being bad, can’t really come to the decision that your one-sided protection is good.
Or you don’t think that what you’re doing is good, just different. In which case, there is no good or bad/better or worse. So you don’t blame people for eating meat, you just don’t agree with following that way of life.
It’s difficult to go into this without specifying a persons reason for consuming animals.
Religious, cultural, pleasure, conformity, convenience, lack of knowledge etc.
It wasn’t most people’s decision, it’s the default.
It’s understanding of background that makes judgment wrong.
Isn’t it hard to do the former without dipping into the latter?
If you are to protect animals, then something or someone has to be doing them harm. Without judging those as being bad, can’t really come to the decision that your one-sided protection is good.
Or you don’t think that what you’re doing is good, just different. In which case, there is no good or bad/better or worse. So you don’t blame people for eating meat, you just don’t agree with following that way of life.
I guess in that situation, the meme applies.
It’s difficult to go into this without specifying a persons reason for consuming animals. Religious, cultural, pleasure, conformity, convenience, lack of knowledge etc. It wasn’t most people’s decision, it’s the default. It’s understanding of background that makes judgment wrong.