I just don’t see it as a religion to force down other people’s throats.
Of course not. The moral imperative not to be needlessly cruel and violent is not religious in nature. It is philosophical. It is also something that most people feel deeply, even if they fail to be consistent with those feelings.
Do you think preventing child abuse is “a religion to force down people’s throats,” or do you see that children have a right not to be beaten, and moral people have a duty to protect them from it? Am I forcing my religion down your throat if I stay your hand from striking your child? Would you say, “It’s fine if you’re against child abuse. Don’t beat your children, but don’t try and tell me how to raise mine!”
I take your point, but it assumes that I see killing an animal for sustenance as being needlessly cruel or violent in all cases. In factory settings with no regulation, yes it is most likely true. However, if you consider living off the land and all that, honoring the animal and respecting nature, etc. then I don’t have an issue with it.
There are certain regions of the planet, like large swaths of the USA and many more, where killing animals for sustenance isn’t needed at all in the present world. Yes, there are a lot of arguments for converting cow land into crop land. On the flip side there are areas of the world where the communities have to rely on their livestock for sustenance (whether by lack of infrastructure or climate or both), and it’s probably 50/50 whether or not some do it humanely. Animals killing other animals for sustenance is something that has been a part of evolution and survival for a very long time.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare it like you are to child abuse for these reasons.
Of course not. The moral imperative not to be needlessly cruel and violent is not religious in nature. It is philosophical. It is also something that most people feel deeply, even if they fail to be consistent with those feelings.
Do you think preventing child abuse is “a religion to force down people’s throats,” or do you see that children have a right not to be beaten, and moral people have a duty to protect them from it? Am I forcing my religion down your throat if I stay your hand from striking your child? Would you say, “It’s fine if you’re against child abuse. Don’t beat your children, but don’t try and tell me how to raise mine!”
I take your point, but it assumes that I see killing an animal for sustenance as being needlessly cruel or violent in all cases. In factory settings with no regulation, yes it is most likely true. However, if you consider living off the land and all that, honoring the animal and respecting nature, etc. then I don’t have an issue with it.
There are certain regions of the planet, like large swaths of the USA and many more, where killing animals for sustenance isn’t needed at all in the present world. Yes, there are a lot of arguments for converting cow land into crop land. On the flip side there are areas of the world where the communities have to rely on their livestock for sustenance (whether by lack of infrastructure or climate or both), and it’s probably 50/50 whether or not some do it humanely. Animals killing other animals for sustenance is something that has been a part of evolution and survival for a very long time.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare it like you are to child abuse for these reasons.