(August 3, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Cato Wrote: Seems a little dubious, "I'm going to take good care of you right up to the point I slaughter you for food".
*shrug*
Humans are omnivorous. Our bodies are designed to eat meat. While this is a bit creepy cattle can't survive without humans anymore. So why not let them be content and live natural lives before we eat them? It's not as ethical as hunting for meat, but it's preferable to packing them into small enclosed spaces.
bennyboy Wrote:Is it ethical to cause an increase in black suffering and to treat negroes like a commodity if it increases the well-being of good church-going white folk? Why not-- we all know they don't have a soul anyway, so what's the harm in letting them work for their keep?
I'd argue that inflicting great suffering in order to eliminate relatively minor suffering represents a greater evil, and is therefore unethical. The average American will manage somehow to survive without that 5th Big Mac of the day.
I'd argue this is a somewhat false analogy. A cow is not a person, their needs are different. A cow does not have the cognitive ability of a person, nor does it have the physical needs of a human. So it is perfectly acceptable to treat a cow differently than a person.
And we aren't talking about that fifth Big Mac, it would essentially mean completely removing meat from the diet of the poorest people.