You are now moving from logical argument to prophecy. Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You’re using this prediction as a shield to avoid the present-day reality of your actions. It’s a convenient coincidence that your ‘prediction’ perfectly aligns with your personal desire to keep eating meat.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You are now moving from logical argument to prophecy. Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.
Whether or not animal rights will be ‘excised’ from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You’re using this prediction as a shield to avoid the present-day reality of your actions. It’s a convenient coincidence that your ‘prediction’ perfectly aligns with your personal desire to keep eating meat.
sure. do you want to argue that it’s not?
you’re right.
you’re jumping to conclusions