• Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    But people wanting to consume animal products is what causes people to kill them. It doesn’t matter if your present want didn’t cause the death of whatever animal you’re eating, it will cause the death of the next one.

    • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      But people wanting to consume animal products is what causes people to kill them.

      no, it’s not. the only thing that can be said to cause the actions of a free agent is their own will. you are denying the free will of the people in the industry, but insisting that i be responsible for their actions. if they don’t have free will, then what makes you think i do?

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Things are more complex than that, though. Imagine if I need some wood and I come across someone who has an axe. The man has no incentive to cut a tree down. I say to him I will give him three ponies to cut the tree down for me and he agrees. Who has caused the tree to be cut down? Everyone has free will in this situation and I would argue both parties are responsible and share the blame. If either party were removed from the equation the tree would stay standing.

        • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          it’s funny that you say that it’s more complex, then you give an example far simpler than the complexities of our current agricultural system.

        • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          this just isn’t analogous to how the system works, anyway. the financiers are operating with (calculated) risk, and willing to pay for meat from suppliers without a contract in place to sell it. to make this fit your analogy, the woodsman would need to just chop up trees and hope you come buy some wood.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s not meant to be. I was explaining why two people can be responsible for the same thing without ruining free will.

            • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I was explaining why two people can be responsible for the same thing without ruining free will.

              but its so disanalogous to how our food systems work that it’s irrelevant.

              • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It’s not irrelevant because it has nothing to do with food systems. You said that if you were responsible for a dead animal then an abattoir worker has no free will. I was exclusively explaining the concept of shared responsibility, wherein two parties can be responsible for something while maintaining free will.

                • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  but because of how disanalogous your explanation is to the facts on the ground, your explanation is moot. you might as well have explained the housing market. one has nothing to do with the other.

                  • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    What are you even on about? You tried to deny shared responsibility, I explained the concept. Shared responsibility applies to this discussion. It’s a metaphor, if I used the housing market to explain the concept it would have been just as valid and applicable.