From a moral point of view, is it better to eat a few large animals or many small animals?
Many people are reducing their meat consumption to reduce the killing of animals. But the amount of meat doesn't necessarily reflect the number of animals eaten/killed. For example, I recently bought a 1000-gram pack of sprats at a discount store that contained 104 sprats. That was enough for 10 pizzas, meaning a good 10 animals had to die for each pizza. On the other hand, if you bought a whole pig, you'd have at least a year's worth of meat, and you'd only have killed one animal. Which is morally better?
(2 votes)
Loading...
If you think that every life is equal, it doesn’t matter how big or small the animal is.
So it’s “bad” to eat many little ones as a big animal.
You “value” the character of a person also per person/person and not what he/she weighs.
I say the spiders are morally better, you have not looked at and cared for all the time and given them a name because it has so big eyes and looks at you like that. That’s bad, you’ve fed and kept it, for a long time and quite often. you’ve seen it all the time and heard it’s integrated into your everyday life and made it present in it. Then you kill it, and then you shall eat the thick bertha still enjoyable while you think of the eyes and the cub she has always made to get attention when you have fed it or clean the stall. Oh, the bertha. I’d rather have the anonymous spred on the teller.
“Moral” is not an objective criterion, but a subjective criterion that everyone has to make for themselves. I think it is morally acceptable to kill animals to meet their nutrient needs.
Alex
If we are not now looking at this from ethical points of view, but towards sustainability, the balance sheet is clear:
A kilogram of beef releases about 13.3 kg of CO2. In the case of a kilogram of poultry meat, it is only 4.4 kg CO2. Pig is in a similar range but produces methane, similar to beef.
One kilogram of insects or flourworms even brings it to only about 1kg CO2, and that with drastically less water consumption. So, the smaller the animal, the less climate-damaging.
I find it in most scenarios to kill unethical animals at all. Well, I don’t want to live with others, I don’t like that. I therefore have no answer to the question. I have strong doubts about killing ever being truly moral.
A few big. Cows, pigs or fish.
Fish aren’t big.
🤣🤣🤣 and I thought I was the only one who thinks so… I actually avoid poultry and eat pig and cattle. That’s why.
We are probably soul-related 🤣
Seems so. 🤣🤣
But you forget that smaller animals can be slaughtered much more easily. A chicken is easy to stun before slaughter. In larger animals, however, this often does not work and they have a very painful death.
On the other hand, you could do something good with killing quite a lot of animals to fellow human beings, for example, by processing only mosquitoes for the pastasciutta, the bullets and the chopped roast.
Sounds good, but would be more morally complicated.
Well, how immoral would it be, would you process fleas and bugs to the chopped brat? Personally, I find plug-in mosquitoes, etc. uncommonly human. I just can’t forgive Noah that he obviously took his ark from those like “a couple from all animals.” Did he have to comply with God’s mission so literally?
Pizza Margherita
I don’t have a prescription for that;-)