RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
April 18, 2012 at 11:37 am
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 11:48 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I don't think that halal is such a good idea, they are allowed to circumvent what laws we do have based on a religious belief. I've commented upon that here on this site. I'm no friend of religious traditions as they apply to food production, not even a little bit.
What makes veal production more or less ethical than any other type of livestock operation? Because they're babies? That sounds like an emotional issue, not a issue of logic. I don't eat veal, mostly because it just doesn't jump out to me as "tasty". But I don't call veal operations unethical because I don't have any argument against them, and they seem to operate within the scope of the laws we have created to address ethics.
So, you feel the laws are lacking, that's fine, let's discuss how we could better those laws from your point of view. I don't disagree with you here in the least bit. On the other hand I don't think that we're going to reach the conclusion you seem to hope for.
You have either misunderstood me or I did not clearly communicate my thoughts on the matter. "Unnecessary suffering" is no such thing -as an absolute-. It's just a description of things which you or I have assigned a negative value judgement to, and our lists are likely to be different.
Why not minimize it? We do............that's why we have animal welfare laws that apply to livestock production.
The question I've been repeating for many posts now, is whether or not there might be a livestock production system that meets the criteria of avoiding "unnecessary suffering", because if there isn't, then we may as well just drop the pretense of basing our arguments on this principle, right? Just call a spade a spade "Livestock production is morally/ethically wrong in all cases". If you you create a separation between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering, but then put all suffering on the side of "unnecessary" then what is the point of creating the distinction in the first place? If there is such a system, if livestock can be produced without "unnecessary" suffering then vegetarianism is not some moral or ethical absolute, is it?
What makes veal production more or less ethical than any other type of livestock operation? Because they're babies? That sounds like an emotional issue, not a issue of logic. I don't eat veal, mostly because it just doesn't jump out to me as "tasty". But I don't call veal operations unethical because I don't have any argument against them, and they seem to operate within the scope of the laws we have created to address ethics.
So, you feel the laws are lacking, that's fine, let's discuss how we could better those laws from your point of view. I don't disagree with you here in the least bit. On the other hand I don't think that we're going to reach the conclusion you seem to hope for.
You have either misunderstood me or I did not clearly communicate my thoughts on the matter. "Unnecessary suffering" is no such thing -as an absolute-. It's just a description of things which you or I have assigned a negative value judgement to, and our lists are likely to be different.
Why not minimize it? We do............that's why we have animal welfare laws that apply to livestock production.
The question I've been repeating for many posts now, is whether or not there might be a livestock production system that meets the criteria of avoiding "unnecessary suffering", because if there isn't, then we may as well just drop the pretense of basing our arguments on this principle, right? Just call a spade a spade "Livestock production is morally/ethically wrong in all cases". If you you create a separation between "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering, but then put all suffering on the side of "unnecessary" then what is the point of creating the distinction in the first place? If there is such a system, if livestock can be produced without "unnecessary" suffering then vegetarianism is not some moral or ethical absolute, is it?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
