This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
My view, then, is not that which it has often been taken to be in discussion and which Singer, Regan, Clark, and others blast in their work; I am not suggesting that, because they lack language, animals can be factory farmed without suffering. Animals can suffer, which they could not unless they were conscious; so they are conscious.
Neither Aquinas nor Kant nor Newman denied, however, that animals could suffer: Descartes and Malebranche thought differently. It is impossible, they argued, to be cruel to animals, since animals are incapable of feeling.
In other words, what they hated—and by no means perversely—was the enjoyment of animalsuffering; to the mere fact that the bears suffered as a consequence of human action they were indifferent. That, on the whole, is the Christian tradition. Controversies no doubt remain.
Imagine arguing not that human chattel slavery ought to be abolished, but that it ought to be reformed so as to inflict less suffering on the slaves. Someone might argue that there is no incompatibility between (1) working to decrease animalsuffering and (2) working toward the abolition of factory farming.
It might be suggested that although becoming a vegetarian as a protest against animalsuffering or a way of committing oneself to helping the hungry people of the world is not a moral duty, it is still a moral act; it is a supererogatory act. One final point. This view is not implausible, but it needs to be qualified in certain ways.
Our findings follow many other studies demonstrating mental anguish in traumatized animals. Suffering is far from a uniquely human experience. I was astonished by how many displayed behaviors that overlap with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other trauma-related disorders.
To the Editor: It’s mind-boggling that in spite of overwhelming evidence that the consumption of animal products is directly responsible for a host of human diseases , greenhouse gas production and indescribable animalsuffering, the general public continues to satiate its taste buds and support factory farming.
By all means let us reform the system of butchery as far as it can be reformed, that is, by the total abolition of those foul dens of torture known as "private slaughter-houses," and by the substitution of municipal abattoirs, equipped with the best modern appliances, and under efficient supervision; for there is no doubt that the sum of (..)
Whereas it once used to be argued, as by Newman , that the least human good compensates for any possible amount of animalsuffering, the current doctrine is that it requires a considerable good to compensate for such suffering. The degree of restriction placed on human behavior, furthermore, is relatively slight.
When it is asked whether animals have rights, and whether human beings have duties to them, the question, I think, is partly moral and partly verbal. Let us consider the moral question first.
For no extra charge, switching to a vegan diet also dramatically reduces your contribution to unnecessary animalsuffering. If you are like most people, you think that it is seriously morally wrong to contribute to unnecessary animalsuffering. There's more!
For no extra charge, switching to a vegan diet also dramatically reduces your contribution to unnecessary animalsuffering. If you are like most people, you think that it is seriously morally wrong to contribute to unnecessary animalsuffering. There's more!
We can willingly support an industry that uses doublespeak to mislead the public about the conditions in which its animals are raised, or we can boycott those very animal agribusiness industries.
I suspect that many regular readers of AnimalEthics are already vegetarians. That's because those who read AnimalEthics with regularity know that there are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.
Becoming a vegetarian is the most practical and effective step one can take towards [sic; kbj] ending both the killing of non-human [sic; kbj] animals and the infliction of suffering upon them. KBJ: Singer’s claim is that one should not contribute, even incrementally, to animalsuffering. That is absurd.
Each one of these animalssuffered extreme cruel and inhumane conditions in the transportation and slaughter process. In an incredible juxtaposition to the fanfare of Barbaro, more than 100,000 horses were slaughtered last year in the United States and shipped to Europe and Japan for human consumption.
While ever more consumers are going vegetarian or vegan, almost every consumer is demanding that companies take steps to reduce animalsuffering. Tracy Reiman Executive Vice President People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Los Angeles, Oct. McDonald’s, are you listening? 25, 2010
Not all meat eaters are cold, cruel, selfish individuals insensitive to animalsuffering. Many, if not most, of the meat eaters I know are deeply concerned about the fact that the animals they eat are raised in factory farm conditions. They realize that factory farming is inhumane.
By comparing the common mind-set that has produced both the past injustices against humans and the current abuses of animals, we can and do inspire debate and convince many people that it is a human obligation to speak out against injustice to all beings. Animalsuffering and human suffering are undeniably interconnected.
Animalssuffer when killed. He says meat tastes more precious when you’ve watched it die. May I recommend a trip to a slaughterhouse? I’m tired of hearing people who enjoy killing justify it with specious moral platitudes. No pearly phrases can make that any better. MARIE BROWN Baldwin, N.Y.,
Consequently, no turkey has suffered or died on my account for the past quarter century. They can't solve the problem of animalsuffering all by themselves, so they throw up their hands in defeat and go on eating meat. Addendum: Sometimes, in talking to omnivores, I get the sense that they feel impotent.
Furthermore, I would suggest not only that it is permissible for those who care about animals to eat meat; they have a duty to do so. If meat-eating should ever become confined to those who do not care about animalsuffering then compassionate farming would cease.
Given that belief, they no doubt also believe that it is wrong to knowingly contribute to unnecessary suffering. If they are at all informed about modern animal agricultural practices, they know that raising animals intensively in factory farms greatly increases the amount of animalsuffering in the world.
We know that animalssuffer as well. I imagine my own horror if my husband were to be brutally taken from me and slaughtered after our years of caring for each other and sharing our lives. We empathize with our fellow humans when they endure mental or physical torture and condemn the cruel barbarians that inflict it.
If capacity for pain were the only feature of persons which entitled them to our consideration, then vegetarians would be right in attacking the person/animal distinction. This approach to animalsuffering allows us to reach a happy compromise between the utilitarian and non-utilitarian approaches to the problem of cruelty to animals.
Jonathan Hubbell, a philosophy major at the University of Texas at Arlington, is the newest member of the AnimalEthics blog, and once again, I would like to welcome him aboard.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content