Morality is Subjective by Earthling Ed Lyrics
Killing animals is absolutely fine because morality is subjective.This is a really astonishing argument, I always find because before I went vegan, I'd never heard the phrase, "Morality is subjective."
Now, if morality was truly subjective, there'd be no need for prisons or a judicial system because any action could be morally justified by saying, "Morality is subjective." If morality was truly subjective, that would mean that behaviors and actions like murder, or rape, or arson, or mugging were totally moral and totally accеptable within society becausе, after all, morality is subjective.
Now, we don't need things like religion or science to define morality for us. We understand as individuals and as a collective that causing unnecessary suffering to another living being is immoral and wrong. That is why we understand that things like murder, and rape, and arson cannot be morally justified; because they have a victim. But all we have to understand and make the connection with is that animals, too, are victims when we purchase animal products. And because they're a victim, a living being that is negatively impacted by our purchases, they too have some consideration when it comes to morality and our moral code. This by default means that when we consume animal products, it can't be morally justified with the argument, "Morality is subjective." Because these animals are a victim through our purchases.
Now, I don't truly believe that anyone actually thinks that morality is subjective. Deep down, we all have an understanding of a basic moral code, and even though we may be conditioned or indoctrinated into a society or culture that says that some animals are here for us to use and exploit, that doesn't make it moral. And if we could see those victims, if we could look into their eyes as they were suffering, most of us would no longer be able to support these industries that do exploit them because we'll be able to see in that moment that there is an individual behind that set of eyes. An individual that's suffering, an individual that wants to live, and an individual that deserves to live.
Morality should be easily defined by whether or not our action has a victim that is involved; a victim that is suffering negatively through our actions. And if there is, we have to understand that we can't morally justify the action if it is not necessary. And our consumption of animal products are far from necessary, which means that because there's a victim that had been negatively impacted, it cannot be morally justified.
"Morality is subjective" is not a good enough excuse to morally justify taking the life of an animal, as these animals are victims. In fact, "Morality is subjective" is a very dangerous philosophy to have, and a very dangerous way to live your life, because these actions that we make do have victims, victims that should be regarded, victims that should be acknowledged, and victims that should be respected.
Now, if morality was truly subjective, there'd be no need for prisons or a judicial system because any action could be morally justified by saying, "Morality is subjective." If morality was truly subjective, that would mean that behaviors and actions like murder, or rape, or arson, or mugging were totally moral and totally accеptable within society becausе, after all, morality is subjective.
Now, we don't need things like religion or science to define morality for us. We understand as individuals and as a collective that causing unnecessary suffering to another living being is immoral and wrong. That is why we understand that things like murder, and rape, and arson cannot be morally justified; because they have a victim. But all we have to understand and make the connection with is that animals, too, are victims when we purchase animal products. And because they're a victim, a living being that is negatively impacted by our purchases, they too have some consideration when it comes to morality and our moral code. This by default means that when we consume animal products, it can't be morally justified with the argument, "Morality is subjective." Because these animals are a victim through our purchases.
Now, I don't truly believe that anyone actually thinks that morality is subjective. Deep down, we all have an understanding of a basic moral code, and even though we may be conditioned or indoctrinated into a society or culture that says that some animals are here for us to use and exploit, that doesn't make it moral. And if we could see those victims, if we could look into their eyes as they were suffering, most of us would no longer be able to support these industries that do exploit them because we'll be able to see in that moment that there is an individual behind that set of eyes. An individual that's suffering, an individual that wants to live, and an individual that deserves to live.
Morality should be easily defined by whether or not our action has a victim that is involved; a victim that is suffering negatively through our actions. And if there is, we have to understand that we can't morally justify the action if it is not necessary. And our consumption of animal products are far from necessary, which means that because there's a victim that had been negatively impacted, it cannot be morally justified.
"Morality is subjective" is not a good enough excuse to morally justify taking the life of an animal, as these animals are victims. In fact, "Morality is subjective" is a very dangerous philosophy to have, and a very dangerous way to live your life, because these actions that we make do have victims, victims that should be regarded, victims that should be acknowledged, and victims that should be respected.