Reply to 'I think all animal abusers should be punished with torture'

Reply to 'I think all animal abusers should be "punished with the torture that they themselves inflicted on the animals".

My reply:
 No. Any nonvegan is participating in animal exploitation, e.g. harming and killing animals for meat, dairy products, leather, fur, circuses, zoos and eggs, etc.
So the punishment for this would be death. We would all be killed now. We would have been deprived of our families and friends.
Do we really believe we can create a nonviolent world through using violence?

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

First of all, read this article:
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

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.”

 Painless killing doesn’t occur of animals that are consumed for food. But it is still morally wrong. Why painlessly killing an animal for food harms an animal and is unethical:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/07/why-painlessly-killing-animal-for-food.html

Also read this: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/being-vegan-is-not-personal-choice-it.html

" I think animal abuse is wrong, because it hurts animals" --- If you follow your beliefs you should become a vegan

" I think animal abuse is wrong, because it hurts animals, i do not like people nor animals being tortured...."

Most people would agree with the proposition that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can’t justify suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience.

"The problem is that eating animals and animal products is, as a matter of moral analysis, no different from dog fighting. We kill and eat more than 57 billion animals a year, not counting fish and other aquatic animals, which involves probably another trillion animals at the least. A billion is one thousand million. A trillion is one million million. So every year, we are responsible for a staggering number of deaths. No one doubts that using animals for food results in significant suffering under the best of circumstances and, as a necessary matter, the killing of the animals. Although many of us think that the dairy and egg industries do not involve killing animals, that is, as we will see in more detail later, incorrect. So let’s apply the analysis that we all agreed was uncontroversial to using animals for food: have we got a good reason? Is there any necessity involved? The short answer: no."

Quote: Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 173-181). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

You are trying to justify human behaviour by looking at nature when you apply the food chain-argument. In nature you will also find cannibalism, rape and plenty of behaviours that we humans are considering are unethical. I write some more about this argument here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
My comment will be too length if I should address everything that you wrote, so lets start with this.

------

 "A lot of other people, or even animals if they had the chance, would not be as compationate. "

Not strange at all since we live in in a completely extreme world, a world in which we sacrifice our love and compassion for animals on our plates for palatable pleasure/convenience.

What is extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products.

What is extreme is that we say we care about animals and we believe that they are members of the moral community, but we sponsor, support, encourage and promote “happy” meat/ dairy labeling schemes.

What is extreme what we encourage our children to love animals at the same time that we teach them those whom they love can also be those whom they harm. We teach our children that loving others is consistent with hurting them. That is truly extreme— and very sad.

Some quotes from:
Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1565-1567). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Being vegan is not a personal choice, it is our moral obligation

Being vegan, i.e. not treating animals as resources and refusing to participate in the exploitation of animals, including the exploitation of animals for “palatable pleasure”/convenience (i.e. animal products), is not a matter of ‘personal choice’. I will explain why.

“One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.”
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vivisection-part-one-the-necessity-of-vivisection/#.UchssJxW6nk

Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach]

You agree that animals do have a moral value. This implies that they do have rights, including the right not to get killed and exploited. Claiming that veganism is a personal choice is tantamount to saying that murder, slavery, exploitation and torture of humans is a personal choice. It is not!
No treatment of an individual, regardless of the individual is a human animal or a nonhuman animal, as a human resource is a personal choice.

“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animals rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione

Go vegan! Stop exploiting animals. I recommend www.vegankit.com

-------

Do you try to stop someone when you see animal abuse?
For same reason vegans share about veganism to educate others from not harming and killing animals for "pleasure" of animal foods. I recommend you to study this article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

---
 Vegans have nothing to be ashamed about so why hide it like a dirty Secret?

Eating meat, milk, eggs and other animal products is paying for industrialised animal abuse

For every bite of any animal product, meat, milk, cheese, etc, you are paying for industrialised animal abuse. Please stop exploiting animals. Please start treating them as individuals, and stop treating them as things with no moral value. Please stop exploiting animals.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.”
Quote: Gary Francione: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

And if you are a vegan, please share with everyone you see is exploiting animals, e.g. by eating animal products. It is our moral responsibility, and if we don't stand up for the animals we are complicit.

 

--------------

 

There are plenty of starch-based foods without wheat you can cook and eat, e.g. potatoes, rice, oats, lentils, beans, etc.. This is a great health website: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

This is a great vegan website: http://www.vegankit.com/
Please go vegan. For every bite of an animal products, an animal is exploited, hurt, enslaved and killed This is not right. We must eat a harmless diet, and care more of the animals than our taste buds or convenience.
A great article I recommend: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

------

Thanks Vicky! I went vegan directly when I understood it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals. This I did this autumn. So did my wife.

We have a moral obligation towards the animals - not to treat them as resources. We are not allowed to kill them, hurt them and enslave them. ' The journey we should make as vegans, we can’t allow and permit any animal products on our journey. We should do a peaceful journey without oppression and injustice towards the animals, a vegan journey of love and compassion, not a journey that permits some animal exploitation towards the goal of no ‘animal exploitation’.

Please, every time you see an animal product, think of and visualize the animals, their moral value and  think of and visualize the harm and death they have to go through, and then choose not to consume it.

Peace, and take care!

Question to vegan: Moral difference between killing an animal and eating a plant?

A person wrote:
" Since plants have life too, as you noted earlier, then it doesn't seem to me we should stop at killing and eating meat, we should also stop killing and eating plants, right?"

I don't believe you think cutting the grass is comparable to stabbing a dog. We recognize that stabbing a dog is immoral because that it causes unnecessary suffering and death upon a sentient being, which is also why we should be morally opposed to the industralized animal abuse in the meat-, milk and egg industry, hunting, and any other unnecessary killing.

I recommend this post about plants: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

It shows that plants are not sentient and they don't feel pain and suffering.
If you still think that plants are consciousness, just like we are and all the other animals are, then avoid killing them. You don't need to. See the paragraph further down.

If you kill and eat cows - then you kill an innocent and sentient cow; and in total you consume more than 10 times more plants are consumed (the food of the cow) compared to the amount of plants you would have had to consume if you ate a vegan diet. This is also why we will eliminate starvation and poverty if everyone eats a vegan diet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas

"Poor countries sell their grain to the West while their own children starve in their arms. And we feed it to livestock. So we can eat a steak? Am I the only one who sees this as a crime? Every morsel of meat we eat is slapping the tear-stained face of a starving child. When I look into her eyes, should I be silent?
The earth can produce enough for everyone’s need. But not enough for everyone’s greed."

You can just eat the seeds of the plants and not kill the plants, if you believe that plants are sentient: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/05/the-connection-of-eating-meat-and.html

I showed in my last comment why it is unethical to consume any kind of animal Products.
---------

It is well-known scientifically that animals are conscious and feel pain, and that plants are not conscious and don’t feel pain.
See e.g. this about plants: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz
“Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn’t include, in my understanding, the ability to think.  Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks.”

------------
Another post:
It has been mentioned previously in this thread. I think that everyone understand the moral difference between uprooting a plant and killing an animal. If we saw someone abusing an animal we would step in and protect the animal, if someone is stepping on, or cutting grass, or cutting down a tree, we don’t believe this is harming any sentient being.
Learn more in this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/#.UciBjJxW6nk
The people who still believe that plants are sentient, can eat of the seeds and the fruits without uprooting any plant.

When it comes to consuming animals, however, it is clear that this isn’t ethical. I will show why.
“Most people would agree with the proposition that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. We could have an interesting philosophical discussion about what 'necessity' means but the reality is if it means anything, if it means anything at all, it means we can’t justify suffering and death for reasons of pleasure, amusement or convenience.

If we had a rule that said, ‘It’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children, but it’s OK to beat them if you enjoy watching them suffer’, that would create an exception that would not only be perverse but would make the rule silly.
Similarly if we say it’s wrong to inflict suffering and death on animals, well what’s our justification for eating meat? We don’t need to eat animals to be optimally healthy. I have been a vegan for going on now 31 years and I would daresay that I have more energy and suffer from fewer colds and viruses than most of the people I teach who are young enough to be my grandchildren. So the idea that you need animal products to be optimally healthy is simply false.

The best justification that we have for inflicting suffering and death on 56 billion animals a year is that they taste good. We are saying it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals, but on the other hand we participate in this all the time. “
Quote: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vege-mice-response/4674360

If you're not a vegan you are paying for animal abuse

The reason why there is animal abuse at all is because of us regarding animals as property, which will remain as long as people insist to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals for palatable pleasures or convenience. It is well known that animal products are unhealthy, and that a vegan diet is healthy: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

And as long as you permit this and participate in this, you are apart of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.
For some clarity I recommend: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.Ua0CHpxc18E

----
Regarding health, did you know that milk products are unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm

Why does many people abuse humans, dogs, cats and other animals?

Why are many persons cruel to human and other non-human animals?
I often try to think that what made a person become so destroyed that he/she feels it is justified to inflict so much violence against another sentient being; and lacks the capacity to feel empathy and love when it comes to the suffering of another individual.

I also think that if this person would have been taught love and compassion from childhood, instead of violence and apathy towards other individuals suffering that this person would have been completely different.

If we hurt another being, we hurt ourselves. In order to kill someone, we have to violate this individual's love and wants, we have to crush hopes, destroy a family and friend relationships; We have to sacrifice part of our inner love and compassion; we have to say to ourselves that 'I don't care' in order to take someone's purpose and life. And this has destroyed us, destroyed our society. The reason why people inflict violence and suffering upon others is the lack of empathy and love to others. If we instead would reinforce love and empathy at each meal by living a vegan lifestyle, instead of destroying parts of our love and empathy at each meal by hurting and killing someone for 'convenience' or taste, we would surely attain world peace. As long as we sow violence and wars by our eating choices, our society and culture will be absorbed in violence and wars.

So the problem is that our society destroys a person so much. The society inflicts violence upon a person, it teaches a person to practise violence, and the person loses more of his/her innate love and compassion. We will never reverse this destructive force and a persons lack of empathy, by feeling and practising violence and hate --- in our actions, speech and thoughts. If we feel violence in our heart, it will also effect our actions, and it will make us less efficient in our vegan advoacy. To show compassion, love and nonviolence in active vegan education of those we meet is the only thing that can make a people experience a revolution of their heart and go vegan.
That another one has abused an animal, doesn't justify a violent revenge action.

So when a person is hating and destryoing for other individuals, I don't feel hate. I feel a deep sorrow for the individual that has been hurt, and I also feel sorry for the individual that has been destroyed by the choices that our society to a large extent has enforced upon that individual. Of course we are all responsible for our choices.... But I know that the person would have been totally different if we had lived in a completely vegan society with no discrimination at all - not against humans and not against nonhuman animals.

We have all been destroyed to a large extent, and more than 99% of the population still is regularly making non-vegan choices, hurting and killing animals on a regular basis. Our non-vegan friends are condemning dog abusers, but are abusing animals themselves: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-note-about-michael-vick/
I also recommend this wonderful essay on nonviolence: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/

Moral relativists believe it is wrong to abuse animals=> the necessity to be vegan

My comment to a person:
David,
Well, you can't convince people if they claim that moral is relative and that it isn't morally wrong to abuse animals. Then you also have to awaken their empathy for animals in some way.:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and-logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/

But most people that claim they are moral relativists do believe that it is wrong to abuse animals.
99,99% agree with the premise that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon another being and then you can easily show that what they believe in requires them to go vegan. A very good and convincing article: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Vivisection of primate and other sorts of animal abuse occur because of non-vegan choices

This happens because animals are treated as property and not as individuals in our society. For each non-vegan choice this property-status is sadly perpetuated. The most effective way to end all animal abuse is to spread a consistent vegan message. Companies will continue to exploit animals as long as their is a demand.

People doing this have been brainwashed by our culture, and their daily choices since their childhood. They have lost their understanding, compassion and love for animals. They are prisoned and are suffering because of this. They don't understand the pain they are causing. However, if we educate them and treat them with love and compassion, eventually they can wake up.

Nice quote: "Like other animals, we are not fundamentally physical beings; we are essentially consciousness. We are all expressions of the infinite creative mystery force that births and sustains the universes of manifestation, and our bodies and minds are sacred, as are the bodies and minds of all creatures.

Like us, animals have feelings and yearnings; they nest, mate, hunger, and are the conscious subjects of their lives. They make every effort, as we do, to avoid pain and death and to do what brings them happiness and fulfillment.

Prayer Circle for Wednesday
Today let us send our prayers to all animals vivisected in laboratories and classrooms.
May compassion and love reign over all the earth for all animals used in experiments. Dear primates, dogs, cats, mice; rats, pigs, lambs, rabbits, frogs, and all of you who are imprisoned in cages, tortured in useless experiments, separated from your loved ones, and suffering constant pain, fear, and loneliness, sometimes for many long years.

Dear ones, we bear witness to your suffering, we take action to permanently end it, and we continually send out an energy field of love and compassion to comfort you and to transform the hearts and souls of those who support this violent oppression.

We send our tears and our prayers on wings of love to you. Our love is all around you.
Compassion encircles the earth for each of you and for all beings.
( 7 daily prayers by Judy Carman www.peacetoallbeings.com)
www.worldpeacediet.com – our daily VegInspiration For The Day
www.circleofcompassion.org – our Prayer Circle For Animals Weekly Update
www.worldpeacemastery.com - our online self-paced WPD Facilitator Training
www.facebook.com/groups/worldpeacediet – our WPD Facebook Group"
Another helpful website: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Leather isn't merely a "by-product" of the beef industry. In fact, most leather doesn't even come from the same type of cow used for beef.

Hello Eric,

You wrote:"Yes, I agree with that statement in general. I in no way agree with abusing animals .."

Great Eric!
Does the animals we kill for food or clothing want to sacrifice their life for clothing and food that we have no need of whatsoever?
Why do you eat meat at all? Isn't this causing unnecessary suffering to an animal?
Do you eat any other animal products, or use any animal products in other ways? If you research e.g. the website www.vegankit.com you will understand that any kind of animal use is wrong, and that it perpetuates the status of animals as "property", which is the cause of the most horrendous physical animal abuses. If you understand this you can in no way participate in any kind of use of animal, since you are both confining and exploiting an animal and are perpetuating the "property"-status of animals, with all of its negative consequences.

Can we extend our compassion, mercy and love to them and to choices that doesn't cause them unnecessary suffering and pain.
The animals make great resistance when someone tries to kill them. They don't want do die.

Please watch the video 'Animals as property' do understand the results of giving animals the status of being "property":
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/#.USoSj1fA0Wk
If you agree of the statement in general that it is immoral to cause animals unnecessary suffering, how can you justify that people caused animals unnecessary suffering  for clothing that they didn't need to survive?

When it comes to animals and byproducts, I agree with this statement:

"Leather isn't merely a "by-product" of the beef industry. In fact, most leather doesn't even come from the same type of cow used for beef.

Even if this were the case, it's important, again, to think of what we do to animals not in terms of "inflicting suffering," but their property status. If an animal is killed to create two different products, what sense does it make to say one product is a by-product while the other is the real thing? Animals are killed because their dead bodies can be sold in the form of various products."