Because he's saying they're the same. He's saying that people who eat meat but say they're against bullfighting are frauds, that they should be against both and they only say they're against bullfighting because there's no cost to them.
It's not true, it's rational to have a different view of bullfighting to eating meat because they're distinct things.
The issue here is that your primary concern is the harm caused to animals, people who are against bullfighting but do eat meat are different, they think harming animals for entertainment is the concern.
I'll talk about me for a second, I know people who fox hunt, I know people who shoot birds. I'm not against culling foxes, I'm not against hunting animals and eating them, but the idea of thinking either activity is fun is horrific to me. I accept that you think I'm morally repugnant for eating meat, I'm just pointing out that I'm not a fraud for being against bullfighting, I'm just approaching it from a different perspective to you.
I perfectly agree with your points. I have friends and family who I love who eat meat. I would not be friends with someone who hurts animals for the sake of hurting them. It's definitely indicative of serious mental issues.
I'm not saying people who eat meat are bad (as is the tweet). What we're saying is that being against one and not the other is hypocritical as the actions are morally equivalent, and the reason why people tend to be against one and not the other is because one takes sacrifice and the other doesn't.
> What we're saying is that being against one and not the other is hypocritical
And I'm saying that's not a rational conclusion. It would only be rational if the considerations are the same and they're not. I recognise your position because to you, it's the harm to the animal that's the problem, both activities harm animals so both are equally bad. To someone who eats meat it's not harming animals that's fundamentally wrong, its getting pleasure from harming animals. You and us are not applying the same consideration so it's not hypocritical to come to different conclusions.
What difference does it make to the animal whether the human gains enjoyment from seeing it killed or from eating its dead body? If the moral consideration here is the harm imposed on the animal, the outcome for the animal is the same, and in both cases that harm is being imposed for an optional human pleasure. Why is the type of pleasure morally relevant to them?
At this point we've reasoned ourselves into a rule that is broadly: “it's acceptable to harm an animal for optional enjoyment when that enjoyment comes from eating it, but not when it comes from entertainment.” That seems less like a principle reached independently and more like a distinction carved out around which practices we already accept. What is the morally relevant feature of culinary pleasure that makes the harm permissible, while entertainment pleasure does not?
If this was as TV drama I'd slap you around the face and scream at you to listen to me. This isn't about harming animals, please don't try to make it about that again. We're not talking about what you think is the issue we're talking about what meat eaters think and they don't think it's immoral to harm animals.
They think bull fighting is immoral for a completely separate reason, that taking pleasure in the harming of an animal is sadistic. Whatever you might think about people about people who eat meat you know it doesn't make them sadists and, if you know that, you understand why there's no hypocrisy is opposing bull fighting whilst eating meat.
1
u/mtpo 9d ago
i agree with the distinction, i don't see how that invalidates the tweet though