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. For animals did not eat of the Forbidden Tree.
Most of it in fact focuses on feeling, on not hurting people physically or mentally, or helping them be happy or escape from suffering. So if human beings are ends in themselves, why not animals, since they too have feelings and goals that they value?
Currently, I am very interested in social and political philosophy and ethical issues. I felt a strong sense of connection to the ideas of Peter Singer while taking Ethics from Keith. Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong.
The case for ethical vegetarianism starts with several uncontroversial premises. Virtually everyone agrees that: (1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason. Most people hold that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering. Carruthers, The Animals Issue , p.
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.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmed animals is good, morally speaking. 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. But doesn't decreasing animalsuffering make abolition less likely?
Augustine [354-430] had long ago decided that beasts were incapable of suffering pain, because otherwise God would be unjust. If (a) animals are sentient (i.e., capable of suffering), (b) animals are innocent (i.e., not afflicted by original sin), and (c) animals lack immortal souls, then there is undeserved suffering.
Interests arise, Singer contends, from the capacity to feel pain, which he labels a 'prerequisite' for having interests at all; and animals can and do suffer, can and do feel pain.
And by this they mean not only that it is wrong to enjoy torturing animals—which few moralists would ever have wished explicitly to deny, however little emphasis they might have placed on cruelty to animals in their moral teaching—but that it is wrong to cause them to suffer unnecessarily. Controversies no doubt remain.
The central case of cruelty appears to be the case where, in Locke's apt phrase, one takes "a seeming kind of Pleasure" in causing another to suffer. Some cruel people do not feel pleasure in making others suffer. Let us term this sadistic cruelty. Indeed, they seem not to feel anything.
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. It makes me feel good to know that, for a quarter of a century, no turkey has suffered or died on my account.
"There is no longer dispute among serious scientists that humans aren’t the only animals who have the capacity to suffer physically and mentally. Elephants, great apes, orcas, dogs, cats, and many other animals can experience depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and compulsive disorders.
A being has interests if it is capable of suffering and enjoyment. This capacity is a prerequisite for having interests at all, and the actual interests that a being has are determined by the particular kinds and degrees of suffering and enjoyment of which it is capable.
By carrying out a slaughter system that greatly reduces the suffering of chickens, Bell & Evans and Mary’s Chickens show that animal welfare and good business go hand in hand. While ever more consumers are going vegetarian or vegan, almost every consumer is demanding that companies take steps to reduce animalsuffering.
If there has been progress in ethics recently it has been through the realization of some ethicists that animal happiness and suffering has to be considered equally with that of human beings. I should draw attention here to the remarkable book Animal Liberation by Professor Peter Singer of Monash University.
This would not necessarily mean that animals have no rights. Presumably most animals—even infants—would have the right not to suffer. As Tooley puts it, although “something that is incapable of possessing the concept of a self cannot desire that a self not suffer, it can desire that a given sensation not exist.
I can't be sure, since the editorial opinion is so jumbled, but the board seems to be arguing that people should continue to eat meat, provided the animals whose flesh they consume are not made to suffer. Is it permissible to eat human flesh, provided the humans whose flesh one consumes are not made to suffer?
Nonhuman animals can suffer. That fact alone suffices to grant them a legal right not to be made to suffer. Dentists make people suffer.) Second, it is not a necessary condition for the possession of rights (legal or otherwise) that one be a person. The right is defeasible, of course, as it is in the case of humans.
" but "Can they suffer?" " So whereas Plutarch and Porphyry thought it necessary to begin their case against treating animals merely as chattels by arguing that animals have a share in reason, for Bentham it is irrelevant whether or not they are rational and to what degree.
But keep in mind that many lactovo vegetarians care about how animal products are produced, not just the fact that they are animal products. These people abstain from eggs and dairy products the production of which involves suffering for the animals. The same would be true of Martin’s hypothetical animal legs.
It’s not just the injured horses that suffer. It’s the thousands of faceless colts and fillies we never see that suffer from this so-called sport. Even the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand ended up in a Japanese slaughterhouse because he wasn’t proving his monetary value as a stud. Jane Shakman Ossining, N.Y., May 6, 2008
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.
Because animals are sentient (i.e., can experience pleasure and pain) and because they not only have but can act on their preferences, any view that holds that pleasures or pains, or preference-satisfactions or frustrations matter morally is bound to seem attractive to those in search of the moral basis for the animal rights movement.
To the Editor: The euthanasia of more than 1,000 dogs and cats at the main animal shelter in Las Vegas is surely a major tragedy in the sheltering field (news article , Feb. 16), and the rapid spread of diseases at a facility packed with 1,800 animals required swift action to prevent even more suffering and loss of life.
If fruit flies have free will, then it's possible for them to suffer from weakness of the will. Do fruit flies have free will? See here for what appears to be an affirmative answer.
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.
If our liking for meat is in fact more intense than our revulsion at the suffering endured on factory farms, then we are going to remain meat-eaters, with the result that, if the vegetarian has grounded his case in an appeal to our feelings, then that case is in jeopardy.
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.
From the perspective of the land ethic, the immoral aspect of the factory farm has to do far less with the suffering and killing of nonhuman animals than with the monstrous transformation of living things from an organic to a mechanical mode of being.
I propose that the moral significance of the suffering, mutilation, and death of non-human animals rests on the following, which may be called the overflow principle: Act towards that which, while not itself a person, is closely associated with personhood in a way coherent with an attitude of respect for persons.
Of course even though they may not have the capacity for happiness and suffering that whales have, nevertheless I would suppose that chickens can suffer quite a lot, even though their consciousness should be very much a sort of daze, and this should be taken into account in our dealings with them.
This passage puzzles me: Unsurprisingly, I believe it is wrong to inflict pain and death unnecessarily on a creature capable of suffering. Peter Singer more broadly examines the moral standing of animals here.) Here is a New York Times blog post about wolf hunting.
14): To the animals being slaughtered, it does not matter whether their killers are local or whether they will be eaten or displayed on a wall. Their suffering is the same. To the Editor: Re “ Locavore, Get Your Gun ,” by Steven Rinella (Op-Ed, Dec.
Animals as well as humans can suffer pain, deprivation, and unwanted death. Vegetables cannot. Hence there is a very fundamental and relevant sense in which we cannot harm a vegetable. The head of lettuce and the flower, however, feel nothing and regret nothing so far as we know.
Notice that the author is not opposed to the use of nonhuman animals as resources for human consumption. She simply wants to minimize their suffering before they are killed (painlessly?) Here is a New York Times op-ed column about pork production. and their bodies dismembered and processed.
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.
20, 2012 To the Editor: Blake Hurst asserts that “production methods should not cause needless suffering,” but the position he takes does just that. Farm Animal Welfare, ASPCA New York, Feb. FEDELE BAUCCIO Chief Executive, Bon Appétit Management Company Palo Alto, Calif., That sounds like a win-win to us. SUZANNE McMILLAN Dir.,
He has volunteered to kill a deer cruelly, ineptly and with an outdated weapon that causes additional suffering to the deer. Animalssuffer when killed. To the Editor: In “ Hunting Deer With My Flintlock ” (Op-Ed, Dec. 26), Seamus McGraw says he has a responsibility to kill deer because there are too many.
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