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
The discussion about the environment usually originates in the massive problems created by the factoryfarming of sentient nonhumans. The arguments against factoryfarming, which most recently were articulated by Jonathan Safran Foer (who has caused quite a stir in the mainstream), are legion.
Humans get all wrapped up in stories of those who can communicate their sufferings. That's why people say that they have no problem eating them, harvesting them, experimenting on them, etc. Some fight for veganism, some against factoryfarms, some against experimentation, poaching, habitat encroachment, etc.
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. There are two types of rights: autonomy-rights and welfare-rights.
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. Because animals are sentient (i.e.,
Keith has not only been my favorite Philosophy professor that I have studied under during the course of my college experience, but my favorite professor in general. I have always felt a sense of connection to animals since as far back as I can remember, and the current manner in which they are treated in factoryfarms disturbs me.
Today's New York Times gives us Adam Shriver's Op-Ed " Not Grass-Fed, But at Least Pain-Free ," which presents its dilemma at the end: If we cannot avoid factoryfarms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.
From the perspective of the land ethic, the immoral aspect of the factoryfarm 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.
The book, which I have not read, that saved Derrick Jensen 's life is called The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith, who was a vegan for 20 years, suffered serious medical problems, and started feeling better when she recommenced eating animals. Throughout the book, Keith mocks vegetarians and vegans.
The good news is that if you know someone who needs to be schooled on all of the sordid details of factoryfarming, and appreciates good writing, this is a great book. Factoryfarming considers nature an obstacle to overcome" (34). You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. Ever, in fact.
Virtually everyone agrees that: (1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason. Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong. Most people hold that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering.
With these lions there were clear welfare and public safety issues, When dealing with lions there are not only welfare and public safety issues, we are therefore delighted to be working with PAWS who have enormous experience with big cats and a reputation for setting the highest standards in animal care.”.
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