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’re all connected through email and listservs, and we all swap information and provide each other with moral support. Occasionally I’d drink way too much vodka and write my long-suffering agent long diatribes with the subject line SHALL I TELL YOU HOW MUCH I HATE BEING A WRITER??? The rehabber connection, though, is very real.
One of the benefits that human rights movements have is that they are articulating for themselves. Humans get all wrapped up in stories of those who can communicate their sufferings. This is because the animals cannot use human language to speak for themselves and contradict either side. (I The Humane Society?
The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. Thousands of studies have demonstrated that human thinking about nearly everything is surprisingly irrational” (65). . The campaign to moralize meat has largely been a failure. Yes, you read that right.)
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. So, even if animals are killed painlessly and raised for food in humane ways, it is wrong to kill them. It is also probable that very subnormal adult human beings do not. This would not necessarily mean that animals have no rights.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. These people abstain from eggs and dairy products the production of which involves suffering for the animals. To avoid this complication, Martin should have stipulated that no suffering is involved in the production of animal legs.
One restriction on the absolutism of man's rule over Nature is now generally accepted: moral philosophers and public opinion agree that it is morally impermissible to be cruel to animals. That, on the whole, is the Christian tradition. Controversies no doubt remain.
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.
There has to be something I can do to reduce all of the suffering of the animals we use as food, I thought. I mean, where do they get their morals from? Luckily, I think I've found a way to assuage my conscience about all of the suffering, environmental devastation and negative health impacts of eating animal products all day.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Glass-Walled Slaughter Houses Mel Morse, former president of the Humane Society of the United States, once remarked: “If every one of our slaughter houses were constructed of glass this would be a nation of vegetarians.”
A third of a century ago, when the modern animal-liberation movement was in its infancy, Martin published an essay entitled “A Critique of Moral Vegetarianism,” Reason Papers (fall 1976): 13-43. You will, therefore, agree with Martin about moral vegetarianism but not about Christianity. Another reason is moral. One is health.
Let us think of the more moral members of society as a moral elite, much as the generality of scientists form a scientific elite. I hope I do not need to stress that such a moral elite must not be confused with a social or intellectual elite. I am myself not so heroic. I eat eggs though they may come from battery hens.
But when a moral being is feeling a pleasure or pain that is deserved or undeserved, or a pleasure or pain that implies a good or a bad disposition, the total fact is quite inadequately described if we say 'a sentient being is feeling pleasure, or pain'. Pleasure is good when, and only when, it is deserved.
If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others. The Humane Society of the United States is the big bully on this strange playground. "The The Humane Society of the United States is the big bully on this strange playground.
The plea that animals might be killed painlessly is a very common one with flesh-eaters, but it must be pointed out that what-might-be can afford no exemption from moral responsibility for what-is. Henry S.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmed animals is good, morally speaking. Indeed, doesn't it entrench the idea that they are resources for human use? 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.
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 factory farming does.
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.
Moral philosophers began to regard it as an obvious truth that it is wrong to treat animals cruelly. It should be observed, however, that if our analysis of the situation is correct, then this change in moral attitude resulted in a restriction of rights rather than an extension of them.
Given the logic of morality, we should extend our moral attention to those states that matter to it when our actions affect that being. not all or even most of our moral attention focuses on reason vis a vis people. Since it can value what happens to it, it has intrinsic value. So what if it can’t reason?—not
"The French have already discovered," Bentham wrote, "that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. " but "Can they suffer?" It is enough that they are capable of suffering. " nor "Can they talk?"
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?) Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. and their bodies dismembered and processed.
When it is asked whether animals have rights, and whether human beings have duties to them, the question, I think, is partly moral and partly verbal. Let us consider the moral question first. Similar considerations, I suggest, apply when we ask whether it is proper to say that animals have moral rights.
For pastoralism belongs rightly to another and earlier phase of the world's economics, and as civilisation spreads it becomes more and more an anachronism, as surely as flesh-eating, by a corresponding change, becomes an anachronism in morals.
The argument for vegetarianism is not based on any claim about the wrongness of killing animals—although some careless reviewers read this claim into my book, no doubt because they assumed that any moral argument for vegetarianism must be based on the wrongness of killing.
Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong. I simply believe that when animals are killed it ought to be for a good purpose, and in a manner that is respectful to their capacity to suffer. I do not believe that the current factory farm system in place lives up to both of those standards.
September 7, 2006, a bill banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption( H.R. Since morally decent individuals oppose treating animals inhumanely for no good reason, factory farming is becoming an increasingly hard sell. Calling an inhumane practice "humane" does not make that practice humane.
Inequality per se is morally irrelevant. Now let's focus on human beings. One difference between human beings and dogs is that human beings can see how others live, can measure the gap between their own resources and those of others, and can envy those who have more. Do you see the distinction I'm drawing?
That system may treat sentient animals like car parts, ruin antibiotics we need for human medicine, and destroy rural communities by polluting our air and water, but at least it’s “efficient” (a word Mr. Hurst hammers three times). The idea that eggs from free-range chickens are somehow morally superior to other eggs is, frankly, weird.
i) Do attend socially conscious circuses like Cirque de Soleil that exclusively feature human performers. (j) j) Donate only to Humane Charities that don't test on animals. A list of Humane Charities is available here. Wishing you a Happy Humane New Year! (h) Don’t attend circuses that contain nonhuman animal acts. (i)
i) Do attend socially conscious circuses like Cirque de Soleil that exclusively feature human performers. (j) j) Donate only to Humane Charities that don't test on animals. A list of Humane Charities is available here. Wishing you a Happy Healthy Humane New Year! Join me in resolving to do right by animals in 2008.
A new willingness among scientists to consider certain moral and ethical implications with respect to wild animals, where previously utilitarian ideas prevailed, including ideas of intrinsic value. As a consequence, “people should treat all creatures decently, and protect them from cruelty, avoidable suffering, and unnecessary killing.”
According to Wikipedia, “A l owl ife is a term for a person who is considered morally unacceptable by their community” The local Nanhui shrikes are well aware that the word “lowlife” has an owl hidden inside, and mark the appearance of owls in their territory with harsh protests.
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.
If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.). Do they suffer any more or less in death? It's a bit difficult to take on the soul question for human or nonhuman animals, particularly for an atheist. Are they any more or less sentient?
Minus that role, the term implies, such an animal has no place; if they aren't some human's companion, or their companionship fails to please, they can be abandoned or killed" (8). With equal validity, we could say that a human locked inside a room has 'freedom' from muggers" (75). Instead, they hide behind passive verbs.
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.
Do they suffer any more or less in death? If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.). But as Cohen experiences, humans don't live "in theory." Are they any more or less sentient? I think not. product that comes from an animal ).
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Speciesism If there is some doubt whether the arguments from monkeys and from glass walls should be considered moral arguments, there can be no doubt about the moral import of the argument from speciesism.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Human Grain Shortage All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animal rights and suffering.
Vamsee Juluri, Professor of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco, takes me back to graduate school when he writes of the importance of the stories we tell ourselves in " Use Free Speech to Celebrate Animal Life, Not to Enjoy Their Suffering." Isn't the mere existence of violence and suffering sufficient?
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. SOME PROBLEMS OF MORAL VEGETARIANISM With respect to traditional moral vegetarianism some problems immediately come to the fore. What animals is it morally wrong to eat? But what is the extent of the universal moral principle?
But, pets also become bona fide family members with which we establish genuine relationships—incomparable emotional bonds that can have extraordinarily positive physical and psychological impacts on humans. Studies have also found that: Pet owners are less likely to suffer from depression than those without pets.
Dogs are able to detect diseases such as cancer and diabetes and warn humans of impending heart attacks and strokes. In many ways, human emotions are the gifts of our animal ancestors. to live out their lives in peace, absent the abuse they had suffered in the entertainment industry.
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