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?
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. N]o fish gets a good death.
Humans get all wrapped up in stories of those who can communicate their sufferings. 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. Animals can't do that. Who is our leader?
She simply wants to minimize their suffering before they are killed (painlessly?) 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. and their bodies dismembered and processed.
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. You and I have both.
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. It is natural to feel sympathy for animals who are suffering. This is bad faith.
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.
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.
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 animal suffering make abolition less likely?
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.
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.
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.
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. Mr. Kristof is attuned to issues of human suffering and injustice.
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Virtually everyone agrees that: (1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason. Animal abuse is a crime in all fifty states, and rightly so.
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.
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. Now there is no doubt that the actual treatment of animals used for food is immoral, that animals are made to suffer needlessly.
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. If they are like most people, they believe that a world with less unnecessary suffering is intrinsically better than a world with more unnecessary suffering.
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