Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
rob05c · 3484 days ago · link · · parent · post: Is an animal’s marked intelligence really reason enough not to eat it?
Ought implies can.
I think maybe I should clarify this for anyone who isn't familiar with Ethics theory. Ought implies can means if something is physically impossible, you can't possibly say someone is morally obligated to do it. Kant formalized it. You can certainly not eat an animal if you're starving to death, and let yourself die. I'm actually bastardizing Kant here, by suggesting someone isn't morally obligated to do something which would result in their own death. Which isn't necessarily true, depending on the ethical theory you subscribe to. Kant would probably smack me.