as I said to the other guy, I’m not saying not natural is bad. But what op is implying is that getting the same stuff from natural sources is bad. That I just don’t agree with. It’s just the natural order of things. I have other options, yes, but I don’t consider the default natural source of things to be bad, so I don’t feel the need to switch. Animals eat animals all the time. And they don’t do it “humanely” either.
Animals don’t have the options we do. That argument fails.
Plus, that argument could be used to justify rape and murder. Perfectly natural. They don’t breed humanely.
Herbivores must, carnivores must not, omnivores with very high level thinking and moral agency is fortunate enough to choose.
Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?
Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don’t eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.
Well fantastic - best to go for the one with the least impact to the environment and suffering then!
To make one redundant point, a nice thing about the less natural sourcing of things is that exact dosages can be measured during synethesis - so when tree bark is swapped out for aspirin, opium for morphine etc. you can get reliable, pure dosages for medicine. I don’t think that’s really very important for vitamins of course.
