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
In this morning's New York Times editorial " There Is No 'Humane' Execution ," we have an imperfect yet nevertheless baby step toward acknowledgment of the HumaneMyth. We went from an abolitionist angle--that executing people is morally wrong--to the death penalty needs to be repealed to eliminate problems during the execution.
" Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals ," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments.
The animals on farms are created for the sole purpose of human consumption. And their lives of exploitation, torment, torture and slaughter cannot be compared to an animal's life in the wild. Finally, people who object to our moral stance jump species and say we should object to the lion killing the gazelle.
Well, as it turns out neither a trip to a slaughterhouse nor killing an animal yourself is powerful enough to make people go vegan. The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. He watched cockfighting and killed and skinned animals, but won’t eat veal.
Here are some of the my favorite quotes: In reality, species don't evolve toward greater humanness but toward greater adaptiveness in their ecological niche (105). No living group of nonhuman animals--no existing species of invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or nonhuman mammal--is ancestral to humans.
Being vegan because you want to live as nonviolently as possible and you don't want to contribute to violence and you don't want to respond to violence with violence is admirable to some, though refusing to support the defense of sentient nonhumans when you probably would if they were humans bothers me. Or vegan pumpkin pie.
She specializes in Environmental Ethics, Human-Animal Ethics, and Moral Psychology. Some of her notable publications include: “The Power of the Visual,” “Western Environmental Ethics,” “Vices of Inattention,” and “The Moral Responsibilities of Intellectuals.”
Notice that the author is not opposed to the use of nonhuman animals as resources for human consumption. Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. Are the lives of nonhuman animals less important, to them, than your life is to you? I can't imagine what it is.
Does my proposal as to what makes killing another human being generally a major moral wrong in any way help us with deciding what, if anything, is wrong with killing non-humananimals and foetuses? Systematic cullings in the absence of feasible alternatives, therefore, may be morally permissible.
I propose that the moral significance of the suffering, mutilation, and death of non-humananimals 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