First of all even if you think that there may
be such a thing as a moral and responsible "property owner", the mere
status of animals being property will necessarily lead to that many animals are
subjected to completely unnecessary suffering. Thus if you
think that animals have a moral value, you can't justify animals being property
under the law:
"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests.
The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...
Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.
Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?
"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests.
The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...
Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.
Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?
------------------------
Follow up answer to a person I am discussing with:
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.
2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.
And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.
3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.
2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.
And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.
3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar