Wow... I didnt expect so many replies its been a long time since I posted in elements forums didn't know they were still so alive.
What I was trying to get at is that we exploit animals the same way we exploit our planet and the same way we exploit each other (specifically big business). So what the philosophical impact? If you say "bacon is delicious, end of story" then you're setting a precedence where self-appeasing behavior is more important than morality. That's the point, because that's how things are.
Well
1: Yes, we do benefit from animals, the planet, and each other. Although I would argue that the way we benefit from each differs. We tend to consume animals, shape the planet, and benefit other humans as a means of benefiting ourselves even more. These differences have characteristics that might have moral significance.
2: You are relying on the negative connotations of the word exploit rather than have your argument focus on supporting why that interaction should have a negative connotation. Doing so is begging the question and thus harms the presentation of your case.
So let's detail out your case: Do you want to start with your equivalating of our interactions with animal/planet/humans or do you want to simplify and only focus on animals?
Finally merely to throw a wrench in the works:
What about the humans that cannot live without getting some of the essential proteins from meat? There are non meat sources of the essential proteins, but food allergies can cut out vital parts of a non meat diet.
I'm not against eating meat. In a lot of cases I'm not against hunting. Not against survival at all so I don't see any "wrench". However, you're implying that we can treat animals however we choose because that's how they reciprocate all the great (sarcasm) things we do for them. If you put that kind of energy out into the world would you want it returned? That's exactly what's happens.
I know it's hard to swallow because it's not the social norm but is that way of thinking consistent with your other moral views? Well, now I'm just cracking a whole other egg open so I'll stop there.
Sorry for my slow response time (I don't visit here as often as I once did).
Ah so you are okay with the consumption of meat in the abstract but are concerned about certain specifics.
I did not and will not imply we can treat animals however we choose. Although the lack of an implication is not an implication of the inverse either.
Nor will I imply that animals possess the capacity of consent that is required for a reciprocity based relationship. A careful read of my post might note I differentiated the 3 interactions humans have(with animals, with the world, & with people).
To the meat of your reply:
If you put that kind of energy out into the world would you want it returned? That's exactly what's happens.
I know it's hard to swallow because it's not the social norm but is that way of thinking consistent with your other moral views? Well, now I'm just cracking a whole other egg open so I'll stop there.
If I am correctly parsing your post, you are concerned with a morality that judges actions based upon if they conform to "effort should be rewarded".
Ex:
The cow's effort eating grass should be rewarded.
Killing the cow and using it as food is not a reward to the cow.
Therefore killing the cow is immoral absent other unmentioned factors.
Is this your position? If so, elaborate. If not, elaborate clearer so that I might parse better.
PS: Do not worry about social norms or my morality. Neither of those 2 independent things is relevant to getting a clear idea of what you are saying. The former(Social Norms) are merely popular opinions. Popularity is unrelated to veracity so those can be discarded. The latter(my morality) is something I have not stated and thus is hard for you to accurately presume about.
