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 " 'Animal Rights:' Pernicious Nonsense for Both Law & Public Policy ," Massachusetts attorney and "sportsman" Richard Latimer is on the mark with some concepts, and way off with others. For an attorney, that's awfully weak.
Lemuel Shaw, the nineteenth century chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, provided this good definition: it “consists of a few broad and comprehensive principles, founded on reason, natural justice, and enlightened public policy, modified and adapted to all the circumstances of all the particular cases that fall within it.”
” Nevertheless, Burgess’s overt determination to combine, in his own words, the “teaching of the facts of natural history and the teaching of moral lessons” had long fallen out of fashion by the time I came on the scene.
Massachusetts is probably an exception, as voters banned racing while tracks were still in operation, so that's a message about how they feel about dog racing that turned into a ban. Greyhound racing is dying, for sure, but not because people are necessarily against it.
Doesn’t he realize that he does not have to engage in this voluntary activity, which causes moral conflict for himself and suffering for the animals? I grew up on a dairy and hog farm in central Massachusetts. Mr. Kristof is attuned to issues of human suffering and injustice. I look forward to casting my vote for compassion.
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