(July 29, 2019 at 10:09 am)Shell B Wrote:(July 29, 2019 at 2:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am not saying declawing cats are cosmetic. I am saying forcing other people to not be, to your eyes, cruel to animals as a way to compel others to embark upon what you think are steps towards “being better” as people suggest the “better” is mainly a personal, morally cosmetic, concept. Causing pain and suffering to animals in order to make the animal better fit our needs and desires has not traditionally been widely considered to be fundamentally morally questionable. In fact it has long been considered a mark of diligence and enterprise. Not being cruel to animals have traditionally only been considered laudable when it does not stand in the way of making animals better fit out needs and desires.
Who cares, though? Traditionally, I wouldn’t be allowed to work or vote.
An obvious difference is allowing women to work or vote, while resisted because it is threatening to established male social privilege, materially enriches the society by enlisting more of those capable to actually contribute the capability, and, as demonstrated during the two world wars, makes the society more robust and capable of dealing with extreme stress. So even the selfish who would protect male privilege knowns it is not all a net loss to them if women were to work and vote.
Not so with the ability to ignore animal suffering to adopt animals to our needs.
