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
I came across this 2005 book from the Society & Animals Journal titled Confronting Cruelty Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the Animal Rights Movement. Readership: This book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to understand the animal rights movement in England, the United States and Australia.
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 factoryfarmed without suffering. Animals are moral patients, but not moral agents.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmedanimals 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?
The column, which you can read here , is a call to arms to factory farmers to fight back against those individuals and organizations working to protect farmanimals from the abuses inherent in factoryfarms. To learn more about Arizona's precedent-setting victory for farmanimals, see here.
And thanks to federal corn and soybean subsidies, factoryfarms saved an estimated $3.9 It’s time that our tax dollars no longer finance the inhumane conditions—for workers and animals and the climate—of factoryfarms. Mr. Kristof is attuned to issues of human suffering and injustice.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. In fact, animals used for food do suffer a great deal. KBJ: Singer’s claim is that one should not contribute, even incrementally, to animalsuffering. KBJ: This misrepresents Singer’s view, which I described above.
As such, they are likely to be better moral reasoners , as well, both in their ability to identify moral reasons and in their ability to appreciate these reasons. Given that belief, they no doubt also believe that it is wrong to knowingly contribute to unnecessary suffering. It serves no significant human interest whatsoever.
He thinks that the treatment of animals in factoryfarms is morally unjustifiable, and yet, he continues to support those practices financially by purchasing and eating meat and animal products. It goes something like this: Yes, I agree that factoryfarming is morally unjustifiable and ought to be abolished.
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