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 don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animal rights by reading this book. Indeed, the ability of intelligent and educated people to avoid confronting the issue, or to offer endless evasions and rationalizations of delay on a question as straightforward as vegetarianism, even when they have heard and (reluctantly) accepted the argument in favor, is astonishing as well as depressing.
Horses destined for inhumane slaughter in the U.S. can now breathe a sigh of relief, thanks to a recent ruling in a federal appeals court. According to this story in the Northern Star, a federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that the USDA can no longer inspect horse meat for a fee. Because animal flesh sold for human consumption abroad must be inspected by a USDA inspector, the court ruling may mean that the few remaining horse-slaughtering plants in the U.S.
Somebody persuade me that this is progress. I can't help but think that, by improving the lives of the animals who are killed to satisfy human gustatory preferences, we are entrenching the idea that animals exist for human use. All we are doing by improving the lives of farmed animals is allowing people to eat meat with a better conscience. This will have the perverse effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of animals killed.
To the Editor: I appreciate Nicolette Hahn Niman’s efforts in raising awareness about the conditions in which pigs are raised (“ Pig Out ,” Op-Ed, March 14), but I was struck by her comment that it is incumbent on us to ensure that animals have decent lives because we ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. This doesn’t ring true, suggesting as it does that we actually ask the animals to make a sacrifice for our sake.
To the Editor: I appreciate Nicolette Hahn Niman’s efforts in raising awareness about the conditions in which pigs are raised (“ Pig Out ,” Op-Ed, March 14), but I was struck by her comment that it is incumbent on us to ensure that animals have decent lives because we ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. This doesn’t ring true, suggesting as it does that we actually ask the animals to make a sacrifice for our sake.
The March 11, 2007 episode of the Stanford University radio program "Philosophy Talk" focuses on animal minds. Stanford Philosophy Professors John Perry and Ken Taylor host the show. Their guest is Colin Allen of the Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington. Also featured on the show are Dr. Irene Pepperberg and her African gray parrot Alex.
To inflict death or pain on animals for scientific or medical research is wrong morally, and ought to be prohibited. This follows from everything said in the text about the rights of animals. This does not mean that animals may never be deliberately harmed or become subjects of research. They may be killed in order to protect the health of humans (and other animals) if they are infected with a serious disease and cannot be quarantined.
I don't understand the logic of this. PETA is offensive, so everyone should eat an animal? What did the animals do? Are animals responsible for the idiotic and counterproductive things PETA does in their name? I've said it many times and I'll say it again: PETA is the worst thing ever to happen to animals. It is a disgraceful, revolting organization.
Here is a New York Times op-ed column about pork production. 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?) and their bodies dismembered and processed. Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being.
Navigated 360° tours, like YourVRTours, advance pipelines by engaging clients further along the sales funnel. These immersive experiences provide comprehensive property insights, increasing buyer intent and readiness. By embracing navigated tours, agents can optimize property exposure, better qualify leads, and streamline the sales process. Stay ahead in the ever-evolving real estate landscape with innovative technology that elevates buyer journeys and progresses pipelines more effectively.
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. Anything we do to a head of lettuce or the bloom of a flower can be harmful (or beneficial) to one or more sentient beings who feed on these or otherwise enjoy them. The head of lettuce and the flower, however, feel nothing and regret nothing so far as we know.
To the Editor: Re “ We Eat Horses, Don’t We? ,” by Christa Weil (Op-Ed, March 5): Ms. Weil’s paean to horsemeat should be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that horsemeat has at times been part of humanity’s diet is not in dispute. But yesterday’s hardship food is today’s gourmet treat. Horses slaughtered in America today go not to feed the poor and the hungry but to satisfy the esoteric palates of wealthy diners in Europe and Japan.
To the Editor: As sponsors of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act , we take issue with Christa Weil’s views on the horsemeat industry ( Op-Ed , March 5). The horse slaughter industry in the United States has nothing to do with feeding hungry people and everything to do with animal cruelty. The facts are these: ¶Most horses that end up slaughtered are bought by buyers acting on behalf of slaughterhouses.
Phillip Barron submitted this blog post for your consideration. As I explained to him in e-mail, murderers are guilty of the most heinous offense, namely, taking innocent human life, whereas animals are not guilty of anything. That difference makes all the difference.
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. The Humane Society of the United States’ recommendation to euthanize animals after 72 hours at the shelter was specific to this situation and does not apply universally, as your
Good afternoon: I have been reading your blog today, and must admit that I have learned a great deal! Thank you! I am writing to ask if you would consider listing The Happy Vegan in your links list. It would be greatly appreciated!
See here. Maybe the bees went on strike to protest bee-zarre working conditions. Maybe they called in sick with the hives. Maybe they went to a Queen or a Honeydrippers concert, got stoned, and couldn't find their way back. Maybe they've become postcolonialists. Maybe they had an identity crisis: "To bee or not to bee; that is the question." Maybe they think their lives are none of our beeswax.
There were 2,113 visits to this site during February. That's an average of 75.4 visits per day, which is close to a record. Here are the figures for the past four months: November: 77.5 December: 74.0 January: 76.8 February: 75.4 I apologize for the recent dearth of posts. Things will pick up. If you have a philosophical question about the moral status of animals (or a moral question about the philosophical status of animals), please ask it by e-mail.
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