You’re making my point for me. Swapping out words to create new moral equivalencies is exactly what I find unproductive. Humans are animals, and we live with competing instincts: survival, empathy, culture, appetite. In the best of times, we have the luxury to weigh those things and make personal choices. But pretending there’s a clean, universal moral framework that everyone must follow, regardless of history, biology, or circumstance, feels more like ideology than ethics. I respect your choices, just don’t expect everyone else to inhabit your frame.
You would find it unproductive since it makes your position obviously untenable. We use metaphors because they help short circuit whatever mental trappings you've managed to construct for yourself.
You're really just saying that it's not immoral enough for you to justify actually bothering to do anything about it, such as inconveniencing others with your opinion. I can pretty much guarantee you it was impolite for people to share their opinions against slavery back in the day, too. All I can really hope is future people will look back on today as a dark period of ignorance about animals and sentience.
I’m not dodging discomfort, I’m pointing out that morality isn’t just about drawing lines, it’s about understanding the context in which people live and make choices. You frame this as a binary: either one agrees with your comparison or they’re morally bankrupt. But that’s precisely why this conversation goes nowhere. I’m not defending factory farming, I’m pushing back on moral frameworks that flatten human behavior into easily judged categories. If you want lasting change, you have to start by recognizing that not everyone sees the world through the same lens, and that’s not always a failure of conscience.
> There’s a clear difference between deciding not to eat something for cultural reasons than deciding not to eat something because it’s an intelligent, thinking creature.
I don't know how that turned into the conversation we have now. There is a clear difference between culturally choosing not to eat cute animals and being a conscientious objector. Whether you think it's harmful to take that stance publically or not is where we ended up.
I objected to the claim that the difference is clear. For many people, the lines between culture, ethics, and survival blur, especially across history or geography. What one person calls conscientious objection, another sees as cultural imperialism. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have values or push for change, but it does mean recognizing the complexity instead of assuming clarity where there is none. The conversation shifted because I challenged the framing, not the idea that reducing harm is valuable. I’m just wary of framing moral discourse as a purity test.
