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. Sounds interesting. Why and how do people campaign on behalf of a species that is not their own?
We've argued in previous posts that factoryfarming is simply not conducive to animal welfare. Animal welfare is a cost of doing business, not a moral obligation. Better conditions for animals hurt the bottom line. Here's an example.
Perhaps she would argue that there is no double standard, i.e., that there is a morally relevant difference between human animals and nonhuman animals that justifies the difference in treatment. Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. I can't imagine what it is.
Some fight for veganism, some against factoryfarms, some against experimentation, poaching, habitat encroachment, etc. It's not sorry, it just hasn't found its moral, UNITED, ORGANIZED voice. (I believe they can speak, but in their own language that we can understand if we only listen.) There is a group for every cause.
There is a difficulty about drawing from all this a moral for ourselves. But then we can say this because we can say that all those are bad moralities, whereas we cannot look at our own moralities and declare them bad. This sympathy can be a basis for revising one's moral principles so as to take animals into account.
Gene Bauer from Farm Sanctuary appears in this article. Pretty intense, but I hope people read it. There is a disturbing hedonism to eating. I went to a restaurant for a work lunch and everyone ate meat but me, even the animal lovers. We just don't think about where that flesh came from.and most of us don't care.
This is a moral principle, and states that 'the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being'. This, however, is precisely what factoryfarming does.
To the Editor: “ A FactoryFarm Near You ” (editorial, July 31) does not mention any issue of the morality of factoryfarming—treating living beings as factory products. Cruelty to animals on such a scale should be the centerpiece of any discussion on raising animals for food.
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 factoryfarms. To learn more about Arizona's precedent-setting victory for farm animals, see here.
Their interests are primarily protected, if at all, through archaic state anti-cruelty statutes that were not passed in contemplation of the factory-farm or genetic engineering. Though factory-farming and biotechnological techniques massively violate the moral rights of farm animals, they have no remedy.
The initial attractiveness of utilitarianism as a moral theory on which to rest the call for the better treatment of animals was noted in an earlier context. Because animals are sentient (i.e., Because animals are sentient (i.e., But utilitarianism is not the theory its initial reception by the animal rights movement may have suggested.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmed animals is good, morally speaking. Someone might argue that there is no incompatibility between (1) working to decrease animal suffering and (2) working toward the abolition of factoryfarming. What do you think of this ?
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.
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. Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong.
There is no doubt a good deal of truth in this last point as well, and we are here presented with a serious moral problem concerning the world food supply. But even this fails to establish a case for vegetarianism. Michael Fox , "'Animal Liberation': A Critique," Ethics 88 [January 1978]: 106-18, at 116-7)
Once I put two and two together and realized where my food came from and the moral inconsistency of it all there was no turning back. My temptation when dealing with others was to simply say, "hey look this is what modern factoryfarming is all about," and voila people would make the change.
However, I agree with Mr. Foer that factoryfarming has to go. Rather than eating dogs, we all ought to eat exclusively small-farmed, free-range meat. Arguments like "Let Them Eat Dog" caricatures the antifactory farm position, which is a shame because it's an important argument to hear.
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. There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one. Ever, in fact.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. As he puts it, “Until we boycott meat we are, each one of us, contributing to the continued existence, prosperity, and growth of factoryfarming and all the other cruel practices used in rearing animals for food” ( Animal Liberation, 167).
An enormous volume of material has already appeared on the conditions under which animals live and die on factoryfarms, and more is almost certainly on the way. What the vegetarian wants, surely, is that we should stop eating meat even if our liking for it exceeds our revulsion at the suffering endured on factoryfarms.
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. Consequently, they realize that all of the suffering and frustration that animals are subjected to in factoryfarms is entirely unnecessary.
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. I have visited many of the grotesque factoryfarms that now corrupt our rural landscapes.
12): While this is a step in the right direction toward reducing the animal abuse inherent in all factoryfarming (from the chicken’s point of view), it’s still a long way from what nature intended. Let chickens be chickens, and avoid the whole moral dilemma by going vegan. Jean Bettanny Port Townsend, Wash.,
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. 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. Premise (4) is widely acknowledged.
I’ll leave the question of infant care to the physicians, but I know firsthand that an adult vegan can enjoy robust physical health without contributing to the cruel suffering of animals on today’s factoryfarms. It’s appalling that anyone would think that a diet based on a dubious morality would build a human infant.
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