• catdog@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    The bottom line is: 1 cow birth per year (or let’s call it cow deaths, because that’s what is most relevant here) yields around 10.000L of milk. Out of which around 1000kg of cheese can be produced, plus of course the meat of that calf.

    Does that make it ethical? I don’t think so. But I would say around 1.5-2x less unethical compared to eating meat, which is significant.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Whether something is moral or ethical doesn’t depend on the commercial benefit you can derive from it! What the actual fuck!!

        • catdog@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Yes, thank you for clarifying this.

          Not sure why anyone would assume monetary/commercial benefit here.

          • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Do you think dairy farmers eat their 100lbs wheels of cheese? It’s the same thing.

            In either case, you’re talking about harm reduction when it is so trivial to eliminate harm. It is in fact EASIER. But your attachment to the fruits of abuse won’t let you see it that way, and you’re looking for ways to make your abuse more emotionally palatable.

            Treating a vulnerable individual as a means instead of as an end is fundamentally wrong. No amount of benefit to you short of saving your life can make it morally acceptable. In a famine we have to make hard choices and sometimes we have to sacrifice others. That’s not the situation right now. We grow more food each year than humanity could eat in two years without harvesting any vulnerable individuals.

    • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I read a book called “change of heart” by a vegan animal activist, which was all about research into what actually worked in terms of convincing people to reduce animal suffering. For him, it would be ideal if we reduced animal suffering to zero. But even encouraging someone to eat less meat (e.g. Meatless Mondays) reduced animal suffering, and was a win in his book. I kind of agree with that.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I thought you were talking about environmental impact? Both cow milk and cow meat have a worse environmental footprint than chicken meat.

      • catdog@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        My point is: ethics should not be confused with a single dimension of ethics. Whether something I’d ethical, depends on your beliefs.

        Simultaneously, if animal welfare is all we optimize for, vegetarianism is a step forward. And indeed, so is pollotarianism when optimizing for just environmental impact. Perfect is the enemy of good.