tisdag 30 juli 2013

Eating dead animals being "natural", does not make it right

1. It is wrong to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings (human or nonhuman) without any necessity.

2. Whatever necessity includes, it must, if it is to be meaningful, exclude the imposition of suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

3. Apart from life boat/desert island scenarios, there is no need to eat animal foods to be healthy.

4. Therefore, eating animal foods outside of extreme situations serves only pleasure, amusement, or convenience.

5. Therefore, it is morally wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals for food.

It's really very simple. There are other premises and intermediate arguments and if I were doing a formal analysis, it would be more detailed, but this is fine for this purpose. As you can see, I am not assuming the truth of the conclusion. I am demonstrating it using a general moral principle that almost everyone I have ever met agrees with.

-------Quotes and discussion from: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/630709030282188

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Christopher Paul Watts: The "food chain" is an artificial construction to begin with. Saying that it is artificial to remove ourselves from it assumes to the contrary. Indeed, all of the pro-eating-animals arguments I have seen in this thread are circular. They assume the truth of that which they seek to prove.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Christopher Paul Watts: Your 3:15 question: "Do you think that this vegan lifestyle is fostered more in large urban centers where unquestionably it is easier to feel disconnected from the food chain and the natural environment ?" What does this mean? I have explained above that "food chain" and "natural" are normative notions that beg the question. In any event, if you are asking me whether people who live in the country and make a living from exploiting animals are more comfortable with exploiting animals, the answer is clearly "yes." But so what?

NZ Vegan ^That's interesting because actually by purchasing any animal products you are participating directly in the killing of animals for 'enjoyment', given there is no need whatsoever to eat them, drink their babies' milk, use their skin and fur, etc etc etc. And you are right, it *is* horrifying. The response to the horror is to go vegan.

  • NZ Vegan Since becoming vegan it has struck me forcibly how the fact that there are no consequences for participating in the torture and slaughter of other animals, for the reasons of pleasure, amusement and/or convenience is chillingly reflected in how people can without license and seemingly unconcerned, blithely 'defend' their participation in it by saying "I am firmly convinced it's not a problem to do this to other animals" or "well I like eating them so that's that" etc (I used to think those things too).

    Being an abolitionist vegan in the current paradigm is exactly like it must have been for the abolitionists against race based slavery in the US and elsewhere, living in societies where the socially accepted norm was to enslave people based on their skin colour, and to be surrounded by defenders of such, and to know that what they were doing was not only perfectly legal, not only vociferously defended, but the social norm. Oh well, sanity prevailed there too in the end
  • NZ Vegan In fact Gary Francione was the one who brought that home to me when I first ever interviewed him on my podcast (the bit about how there are no consequences whatsoever for continuing to participate in the exploitation and slaughter of animals). I wish I could remember exactly what he said, i will have to go and find it. I have never forgotten it.

  • NZ Vegan "Well no, a normal diet is normal, having slaves is not."

    Oh that's very convincing. Not. It is totally arbitrary statement. You and I have very different ideas of what is "normal" and "oh that's 'normal' just doesn't cut it. It's 'normal' for many civilisations to rape girl children and sell them as sex slaves. If they said to you 'it's normal" in answer to your protestations of the immorality of that, I am sure you will not accept that (or maybe you would, I don't know. *I* certainly don't).

    The only relevant thing that has been established is that human beings *thrive* on vegan diets. That is a fact. The other thing that has been established is that veganism is not a diet and involves all animal use. That is another fact.

    I have read your comments and am beginning to err on the side that you simply don't care, or don't care enough (I may be wrong). As there are plenty of other people who do care, I will use my energy on them. I hope you think about this some more, but that is up to you. Ciao.
  • NZ Vegan In other words, I hope I am wrong but in the time when it was indeed "normal" to have slaves (it's not normal NOW -that's my point) I am sad to think you would have been one of the people vociferously defending it as "normal". I am only inferring that from your comments here and could be completely incorrect about you of course

    Inga kommentarer:

    Skicka en kommentar