Asklemmy

43434 readers

1589 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Automobiles replacing horses: ethical consequences (reddthat.com)

submitted 6 months ago by cqthca@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering -- as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

it’s better to not even exist in the first place than to suffer. This goes for farm animals as well but we’re not

If you believe this, does that give you a moral imperative to start a nuclear war and end the suffering of future human generations?

[–] SecretPancake@feddit.de 1 points 6 months ago

I never said kill all horses/humans/whatever. The difference is between taking lives away and not forcefully breeding life for the purpose of enslavement.