>>12137404I mean...caring for creatures like this one is a choice enforced by norms that say vulnerability looks like this and you should care for it, as not every creature on earth lives in ideal conditions they were meant to survive in. That thinking seems outside of science, so we could analyze the subject that wants to protect the things instead of the thing itself. The subject that wants to protect a thing (i.e. the lamb) has motivation coming from their mind or a physical incentive, or perhaps both. From here it's abstract as Patrick's milk spilling on the table inside his mind, but if there are supposedly innate...expectations inside the brain that can lead people to protect things without education or necessity, then it's that. If not, then I don't know why we feel anything at all.
It's quite dramatic, but it's really me being ignorant beyond that point about how feelings connect to scientific explanation.
Also
>>12137420That happens for farmers everyday. For the ones that have livestock to sell. Go vegan because you get more energy or effective nutrients from specific greens, not just because animals are to be treated with respect. Judging your concern, going vegan just for morality's sake seems too ill-informed to make a positive change of life. Still, if you still wanna love
and protect animals, praise their physical qualities and abilities instead of subjective things while not being a fucking furry about it. Makes you appreciate mother nature, but I don't know any facts about lambs that render their planned suffering trivial.
