Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[Scabby Joe]

If we focus on food production and ethics specifically we see this writ large. There are standards written into law that prescribe ways which people "ought" to treat their livestock.

There are some laws covering some aspects. Theer are huge gaps where there is simply noregulation.

They have been formed in order to prevent that "unnecessary suffering" which you've pinned your claims on (this being a phrase with a hell of alot of leeway btw, that's putting it nicely), and yet they are not always followed. This is due largely to the cost involved. Now, I would personally say that if a producer is incapable of meeting the requirements set forth by law then they have no business in the business, leave it to those who are capable.

Veal prodcution is lawful. Do you think it ethical? I don't think you can avoid ethical responsibility just because there are some laws covering some aspects of animal treatment.

On the other hand, when a producer does meet these requirements then how can they be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion?

As I have said, laws do not cover every aspect. They are compromises between animal welfare and the leverage the livestock industry is able to use. Again, I believe it is an abdication od responsibility to rely on 'laws' without understanding what they allow and those areas where they are absent.

How can the consumer of their products be said to be acting unethically, or in a morally questionable fashion?



This is the crux of what I've been questioning you about, is "unnecessary suffering" actually some sort of absolute you've based your argument on or is it a weasel phrase that allows you include or exclude a behavior based on a rationalized emotional response?

It does not matter whether I think ethics are absolute or relative, it is your individual view I am after. What is the moral justification for halal meat production or veal production for instance?

Is it actually "unnecessary suffering" that you have an issue with, or just suffering?

Unnecessary suffering. Getting an innoculation involves suffering but is ethical for obvious reasons.

What does or does not constitute "uneccessary suffering" is no such thing, and you don't seem to be very clear on what is included or excluded yourself, or the lengths we've gone to provide a pragmatic solution to an idealistic concern with regards to animal welfare.

There is no such thing as unnecessary suffering? Please explain!



Something is going to "suffer" if we are going to eat.

But why not minimise it?

---

[quote='Scabby Joe' pid='273363' dateline='1334606399']
[/b]Richard Dawkins can see no good moral reason for eating meat. He sees it as being akin to sexism or racism.

It seems that evolution tells us that we are nothing more than another animal so it's easy to see where Dawkins is coming from.

I suppose that you need to have a moral position that causing unnecessary pain and suffering is wrong.

Do you agree with Dawkins that on moral grounds, eating meat cannot be justified?

I would like to have a list of quotes first, sir. I know Richard Dawkins, however, I'm not very well versed with his writings, so I'd like a direct quotation to make up my mind.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU