måndag 8 juli 2013

Vegan reply to: Is there a moral difference between eating animals compared to animal abuse/dog fighting

First of all, read this article:

As for the comparison with dog-fights:
The bottom line is clear: we all know that our meat involves suffering and killing. No one doubts that. So it’s not really even that those who consume animals don’t know about the suffering. Of course they do. Yes, there is a psychological difference between Michael Vick and someone who just consumes animal products and would never kill an animal herself, but that is a psychological difference, not a moral one.

From all accounts, Vicks treated his dogs in an appalling way. There is no doubt that many of them suffered a great deal. But frankly, the animals whose bodies many of us will eat tonight at dinner suffered every bit as much, if not a great deal more. Similarly, many people who consume meat object to hunting. When we ask them why they object given that they eat meat, dairy, eggs, etc., they often reply, “Because there’s something worse about killing the animal yourself. I would never be able to look at an animal and just shoot it with a bullet or an arrow.”

Again, that response identifies a psychological fact; not anything that is morally relevant. Indeed, the animal who is raised and killed to make the hamburger probably had, on balance, a much worse life than the animal killed by the hunter. So, although killing the animal in both situations is not necessary, if there is any difference between these two situations, it is that the former is actually worse because it involves more suffering.”

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar