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
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. Controversies no doubt remain.
If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others. The HSUS isn't even anti-hunting ! Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times. Of course, Lobo is missing the point entirely.
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.
There are some personal anecdotes I plan on sharing on this site that range from my most recent experience of getting trapped on a hunting trip with my relatives, to an early memory I have of experiencing empathy for the first time with my dog Tabatha. Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong.
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.
Developed in the post-frontier era, the NAMWC helped put a stop to wanton wildlife destruction in an era where many species were being hunted and trapped ruthlessly to the brink of extinction. George Wuerthner, an ecologist and former hunting guide with a degree in wildlife biology, takes the debate a step further. Smith and Donald A.
I get that you’re really angry, I mean, he was a popular lion and yes, his cute widdle cubs will probably die to, but I can’t help feeling you’ve kind of missed the point a bit, and well, ending all hunting in Africa will not solve much and maybe make things worse and… No, no, I’m not a hunter. I’m sorry.
Dunayer devotes a chapter each to the language used in hunting, zoos, "marine parks," vivisection and "animal agriculture." An animal's own terms are 'Don't hunt me'" (49). "At In their publications, vivisectors virtually never state that they inflicted the harm suffered by their victims. Often it permanently disables or kills.
There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one. Some have tried to resolve this gap by hunting or butchering an animal themselves, as if those experiences might somehow legitimize the endeavor of eating animals. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer.
Here is a New York Times blog post about wolf hunting. This passage puzzles me: Unsurprisingly, I believe it is wrong to inflict pain and death unnecessarily on a creature capable of suffering. Peter Singer more broadly examines the moral standing of animals here.) Why does this belief not "compel us to be vegetarians"?
To the Editor: In “ Hunting Deer With My Flintlock ” (Op-Ed, Dec. He has volunteered to kill a deer cruelly, ineptly and with an outdated weapon that causes additional suffering to the deer. He says he hunts out of a need to take responsibility for his family, who evidently live where the supermarkets offer no meat.
He thinks that the treatment of animals in factory farms 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 factory farming 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