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.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. CONCLUSION There is no doubt that moral vegetarianism will continue to be a position that attracts people concerned with the plight of animals and with humanitarian goals. One final point.
One restriction on the absolutism of man's rule over Nature is now generally accepted: moral philosophers and public opinion agree that it is morally impermissible to be cruel to animals. That, on the whole, is the Christian tradition. Controversies no doubt remain.
Frey , Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980], 109 [italics in original; footnote omitted]) Note from KBJ: Who thinks, much less argues, that animals are responsible for their acts? Animals are moral patients, but not moral agents.
Each year, 'food animals' suffer and die by the billions, but they do so one by one. To rest easy, those who buy or sell products from nonhuman bodies must forget that each victim suffered personal loss of freedom, well-being, and life" (140). What if slaughter were freed (miraculously) of all terror and pain?
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?
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. That's what moral integrity—being an integrated person rather than a fragmented one—is all about.
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.
Once a definite social movement got under way in the West with its objective the restricting of man's treatment of animals, it moved with relative rapidity. Moral philosophers began to regard it as an obvious truth that it is wrong to treat animals cruelly.
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. Similar considerations, I suggest, apply when we ask whether it is proper to say that animals have moral rights.
The plea that animals might be killed painlessly is a very common one with flesh-eaters, but it must be pointed out that what-might-be can afford no exemption from moral responsibility for what-is.
I’m tired of hearing people who enjoy killing justify it with specious moral platitudes. Animalssuffer when killed. He says meat tastes more precious when you’ve watched it die. May I recommend a trip to a slaughterhouse? No pearly phrases can make that any better. MARIE BROWN Baldwin, N.Y.,
The dark secret behind factory farm profits—cruel and inhumane animal husbandry—is getting out. Factory farmers treat animals inhumanely for no good reason. Since morally decent individuals oppose treating animals inhumanely for no good reason, factory farming is becoming an increasingly hard sell.
It is asking the burger-stuffer to come clean ; to show just why it is that his greed should be indulged in this way, and just where he fits into the scheme of things, that he can presume to kill again and again for the sake of a solitary pleasure that creates and sustains no moral ties.
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.
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.
Kristof’s thoughtful exploration of animal rights, I was astonished to read that he continues to eat animals, like geese and pigs, for which he obviously has such affection and respect. Doesn’t he realize that he does not have to engage in this voluntary activity, which causes moral conflict for himself and suffering for the animals?
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.
He thinks that the treatment of animals in factory farms 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 factory farming 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