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
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.”
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. This sympathy can be a basis for revising one's moral principles so as to take animals into account.
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 would remain true, of course, that the vegetarian diet is more limited, since every pleasure available to the vegetarian is also available to the carnivore (not counting the moral satisfactions involved, of course—which would be question-begging), plus more which are not available to the vegetarian so long as he remains one.
I prefer "anti-unnecessary slaughter of sentient nonhumans" and it has nothing to do with perceived modernity. Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times. Parker uses the term "anti-modern farming activists," which is new to me. Besides, is the "modern" veal crate something to be proud of?
where 10 billion animals are raised and slaughtered needlessly for food each year, Regan's books remain as relevant today as when they were first published. While the animal rights community has lost its biggest advocate, we can be grateful that his words will live on to inspire countless others to give animals the moral respect they are due.
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'. According to Singer , the principle of the equal consideration of interests 'requires us to be vegetarians'.
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. News flash: Slaughtering horses does not promote their welfare. 503 ) was approved in the U.S.
There are two approaches a vegetarian might take in arguing that rearing and killing animals for food is morally offensive. He might argue that eating animals is morally bad because of the pain inflicted on animals in rearing and killing them to be eaten. Or he could object to the killing itself.
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.
Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion consider'd, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had, or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable.
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. Nobody wants existing animals to be slaughtered.
The problem with that statement is it's not as if farmers are searching "the wild" for cows, pigs, chicken and fish, plucking them from their homes, and plopping them on a farm to live out their (shortened) lives prior to slaughter. They are created to be slaughtered. The choice isn't the wild or the farm. Besides, we have choices.
By pairing humane with slaughter , legislators have sanctioned horrific cruelty and mass murder. What if slaughter were freed (miraculously) of all terror and pain? I'd rather extend moral consideration to something that can't suffer than fail to extend it to someone who can" (154). Overly generous inclusion?
There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one. The Nimans move him, as do several other farmers, including one who "apologizes to his animals as they are sent off to slaughter" (244), as if that's any consolation to someone whose life you are about to take when you don't need to.
Its validity is limited by other moral imperatives. And I believe that in most cases man is morally justified in thus reducing the satisfactions of the food animals. The moral issue, when a man eats lamb chops, is not: Does he gain more value than the lambs have lost by dying so young? But few people do this.
That is, if what the vegetarian wants is that we should stop eating meat even if we like eating it and even if our liking for it greatly exceeds our revulsion at the suffering of animals in being raised and slaughtered for food, then a decision to stop eating meat would seem to amount to a decision of principle.
If the goal is not moral perfection for ourselves, but the maximum benefit for animals, half-measures ought to be encouraged and appreciated. Mr. Steiner rightly rejects this view as morally flawed. If we are not justified in eating mackerel ourselves, are we not also morally obligated to stop the slaughter brought on by the tuna?
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong.
Though chickens can live for 5 to 11 years, after two years, they are hauled away to slaughter just like battery-caged hens. Let chickens be chickens, and avoid the whole moral dilemma by going vegan. All of the male hatchlings are either smothered or ground up alive. Jean Bettanny Port Townsend, Wash.,
There are moral reasons to go vegetarian: recognition that it is wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering the injustice of exploiting animals and killing them for no good reason If human have rights, then many nonhuman animals also have rights, and confining and killing these animals for food violates these rights.
The fact that geese mate for life, and that the mate of the poor goose that was slaughtered would step forward, was enough to make me swear off meat forever, if I hadn’t already. 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?
First of all, whether someone was born in a breeding center, under a porch or in my living room doesn't make them more or less entitled to a life free of enslavement, torture and slaughter. He writes as if what he used to do--and what he defends--is morally justifiable on its face, and it's just the details that might be questionable.
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.
"While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter." And perhaps that "better" will distract the reader from the undeniable fact of the unjust slaughter. All you need to know is one word: slaughter.
We have given an awful exhibition of slaughter and destruction, which may serve as a warning to all mankind. Of course, by now most people know they have been slaughtered by hunters for their ivory. This is a very disturbing video of Sandhill Cranes being slaughtered by “hunters.”
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