Moral Consistency

BBC Analysis was talking about Killing Cows.  When we listened to it, it was a moral discussion not a scientific justification.

The first philosophers have pro-life views, and they try to find justifications about not taking animal's lives, and akin it with racism, they called speciesism.  Then some justified non-mammals as not having high cognition to have complex feels and pain, and only eat those lower organisms.  I personally think they are bonkers.

The last philosophers on the shows have a chaotic life view, understanding animals and humans are dying, and the use of their bodies should not be much different, and akin cannibalism to organ transplant, which I find enlightening.

Ultimately, they brought up the issue of moral consistency.  I admit a lot of philosophers are bonkers,  but they are probably consistent, which is actually very hard.  And I have a long held believe people should be consistent of their belief and their actions, rather than being a hypocrite.

Most of the listeners will be as confused as they have started, and started to understand their moral in consistence, but it is probably easier to eat less meat, continue to use their illogical reasons to justify their doings than becoming less hypocritical.