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.
I came across this 2005 book from the Society & Animals Journal titled Confronting Cruelty Moral Orthodoxy and the Challenge of the AnimalRights Movement. Readership: This book will be of interest to anyone who wishes to understand the animalrights movement in England, the United States and Australia.
Why should an animalsuffer excruciating pain so a women can dab makeup on her face? Tags: animalrights. I’m married to a meat eater and he can’t provide a better answer than “It just tastes good.” Most of the women I know don’t even benefit from the makeup. Either you have beauty or you don’t. Get over it.
Is there a different culture regarding animals in Europe? Are animalrights organizations more effective? At a conference in Brussels, Belgium on 6 November, European Commission Vice-President Günter Verheugen, and Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik restated the EU's commitment to the reduction of animal testing.
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.
I will conclude with some remarks about the rights of animals. 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. It is this latter view, I believe, that is in the minds of some of those who deny that animals have rights.
The Unalienable Rights of Chimps ,” by Adam Cohen (Editorial Observer, July 14): The Spanish Parliament’s decision to grant rights to apes is indeed groundbreaking, and will foster philosophical discussion about animal protection for some time. Suffering is far from a uniquely human experience.
Eat right. What counts as eating right? Eat right—I will eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and high in complex carbohydrates and fiber; and I will limit my consumption of empty calories like those found in sweets, soda pop, and trendy high-calorie coffee drinks. Lose weight. Quit smoking.
Eat right. What counts as eating right? Eat right—I will eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and high in complex carbohydrates and fiber; and I will limit my consumption of empty calories like those found in sweets, soda pop, and trendy high-calorie coffee drinks and energy drinks. Lose weight.
It should be observed, however, that if our analysis of the situation is correct, then this change in moral attitude resulted in a restriction of rights rather than an extension of them. There is far from being a precise analogy, however, between the importance attached to animal and to human suffering.
A column entitled "Ag Industry Threatened by AnimalRights" appeared in today's High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal [ HPMAJ ]. 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 farm animals from the abuses inherent in factory farms.
In fact, animals used for food do suffer a great deal. Now there is no doubt that the actual treatment of animals used for food is immoral, that animals are made to suffer needlessly. One argument is this: The present practice of treating animals used for food is immoral and should be changed.
It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animalssuffer greatly. However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. It's just not right. It's cruel.
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. But that's not the only way to look at it, and I would argue that it's not the right way. Surely not.
The Unalienable Rights of Chimps ,” by Adam Cohen (Editorial Observer, July 14), unfairly characterized PETA’s efforts. Animalsuffering and human suffering are undeniably interconnected. To the Editor: “ What’s Next in the Law? Few people know the depth of our work, as it is mostly our stunts that make the news.
He has volunteered to kill a deer cruelly, ineptly and with an outdated weapon that causes additional suffering to the deer. Animalssuffer when killed. But whether with a flintlock or a modern rifle, hunting cruelly takes the life of a living, sentient being that has as much right to live as any hunter or writer.
Kristof’s thoughtful exploration of animalrights, I was astonished to read that he continues to eat animals, like geese and pigs, for which he obviously has such affection and respect. Mr. Kristof is attuned to issues of human suffering and injustice. We know that animalssuffer as well.
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. Duty requires us, therefore, to eat our friends.
There are moral reasons to go vegetarian: recognition that it is wrong to contribute to unnecessary animalsuffering the injustice of exploiting animals and killing them for no good reason If human have rights, then many nonhuman animals also have rights, and confining and killing these animals for food violates these rights.
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.
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