• Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The point of the the thought experiment is to allow you to view the situations without the biases you already have, as most people have been in a butcher shop which is the first situation I described, and most people have had food delivered to them from far away which is the second situation I described. Since those are normal things, your initial thought would likely be that they are normal and not murder.

    If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.

    In other words there is no eating a cooked dead chicken carcass without killing a chicken.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you replace it with humans, I would argue that both situations would be murder for person C because there is no way they could reasonably assume they could get human meat without a person being killed and it taken from them.

      there was some ambiguity in how you phrased it whether the person buying even knew it was human meat. regardless, they are not responsible for the actions of other people in the past.