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.
My view, then, is not that which it has often been taken to be in discussion and which Singer, Regan, Clark, and others blast in their work; I am not suggesting that, because they lack language, animals can be factory farmed without suffering. Animals can suffer, which they could not unless they were conscious; so they are conscious.
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.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Presumably most animals—even infants—would have the right not to suffer. Consequently, the killing of some animals for food, if done painlessly, is not morally objectionable. 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. CONCLUSION There is no doubt that moral vegetarianism will continue to be a position that attracts people concerned with the plight of animals and with humanitarian goals. One final point.
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.
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.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. One might assume—although again this assumption may not be jusitified [sic]—that Mr. One might assume—although again this assumption may not be jusitified [sic]—that Mr. Morse was using this consideration as a moral argument for vegetarianism.
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.
He is an unabashed speciesist, putting humans on “a different moral plane from that of other animals” (11) due to various reasons, such as our “vastly greater capacity for symbolic language, culture, and ethical judgment” (11). On page 172, when Herzog writes, “I am conflicted over many moral issues involving animals,” I respond, “No kidding!”
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.
Now, I do hope you have stayed with me to this point, because there is a moral to this story: How much do you like your ducks, grebes, sandpipers, and plovers? Lago de Cuitzeo, which hosts hundreds of thousands of birds each winter, suffers from water overuse by agriculture, insufficient sewage treatment, and unplanned development.
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.
Humans get all wrapped up in stories of those who can communicate their sufferings. It's not sorry, it just hasn't found its moral, UNITED, ORGANIZED voice. One of the benefits that human rights movements have is that they are articulating for themselves. Animals can't do that. Just the sorry animal rights movement.
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'.
If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others. Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times. Of course, Lobo is missing the point entirely. Are we pinning people down and force-feeding them vegan burritos? .
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.
It might be argued that any decrease in suffering for farmed animals is good, morally speaking. 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. But doesn't decreasing animal suffering make abolition less likely?
Note that this debate is independent of the debate about the moral permissibility of eating fish. If organically raised fish suffer less than nonorganically raised fish, it is an accident, morally speaking. It's possible, in other words, that some organic methods inflict greater pain on the animals than nonorganic methods.
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
If all pain is evil, as Bentham thought, then the pain of animals—assuming only that they can feel pain—ought not to be ignored in man's moral decisions. " but "Can they suffer?" It is enough that they are capable of suffering. "The question is not," so Bentham argues, "Can they reason?"
Many organizations suffer from a silo mentality — everyone has their own roles and responsibilities and there’s no overlap between one department and the next. Couple it with more dynamic goals to boost morale and improve sales team performance. Is it fixable thing or does an element of the company’s culture need addressing?
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.
She simply wants to minimize their suffering before they are killed (painlessly?) Perhaps she would argue that there is no double standard, i.e., that there is a morally relevant difference between human animals and nonhuman animals that justifies the difference in treatment. and their bodies dismembered and processed.
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.
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.
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. Henry S.
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.
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.
Since morally decent individuals oppose treating animals inhumanely for no good reason, factory farming is becoming an increasingly hard sell. According to the HPMAJ column, "Loos told cattle producers the livestock industry must show the public that there are moral and ethical justifications for taking the life of an animal to feed a person.
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.
20, 2012 To the Editor: Blake Hurst asserts that “production methods should not cause needless suffering,” but the position he takes does just that. The idea that eggs from free-range chickens are somehow morally superior to other eggs is, frankly, weird. FEDELE BAUCCIO Chief Executive, Bon Appétit Management Company Palo Alto, Calif.,
Inequality per se is morally irrelevant. How many are suffering for lack of food, fuel, shelter, clothing, or medical care? Once we create this floor, who cares whether some dogs are above it? Who cares that some dogs are spoiled when every dog has a decent life? Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? What's important is welfare.
For no extra charge, switching to a vegan diet also dramatically reduces your contribution to unnecessary animal suffering. If you are like most people, you think that it is seriously morally wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering.
For no extra charge, switching to a vegan diet also dramatically reduces your contribution to unnecessary animal suffering. If you are like most people, you think that it is seriously morally wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering.
“Quality will most likely suffer?—?and They can be a huge drain on company morale as their “do the bare minimum” attitude influences their coworkers. and innovation certainly will?—?as as these workers will choose not to invest any more of their time, creativity and intelligence in their work than they absolutely have to.”.
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.
The killing of Cecil was equated with murder, a moral crime rather than a symptom of a ecological problem. Animal rights is concerned with individual animals, and their suffering and welfare. Conservation is concerned about protecting populations, species, habitats, ecosystems.
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 I tacitly approve of Hare Krishna?
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.”
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. Tags: Moral Vegetarianism. KBJ: I’m speechless.
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.
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