article thumbnail

Parity

Animal Ethics

The author is pointing out the inconsistency of eating cows and not eating dogs (or rather, caring about dogs but not caring about cows). It's morally permissible to eat cows. It's not morally permissible to eat dogs. There are no morally relevant differences between cows and dogs.

Morals 40
article thumbnail

Philip E. Devine on Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

There are two approaches a vegetarian might take in arguing that rearing and killing animals for food is morally offensive. He might argue that eating animals is morally bad because of the pain inflicted on animals in rearing and killing them to be eaten. Nor could he object to the painless killing of wild animals.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Reasons Consistently Applied

Animal Ethics

I suspect that many regular readers of Animal Ethics are already vegetarians. That's because those who read Animal Ethics with regularity know that there are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. These birds are some of the most abused animals in agriculture. I replaced cow's milk with soy milk.

article thumbnail

Canis Lupus

Animal Ethics

Peter Singer more broadly examines the moral standing of animals here.) While this belief might not compel us to be vegetarians, it does demand significant changes in the way we raise animals for food, and it forbids wolf hunting as a form of entertainment. How much do you want to bet that Randy Cohen eats cows and pigs?

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

In fact, a whole lot of semi-vegans can do much more for animals than the tiny number of people who are willing to give up all animal products and scrupulously read labels. Farm animals also benefit from the humane farming movement, even if the animal welfare changes it effects are not all that we should hope and work for.

article thumbnail

Henry S. Salt (1851-1939) on Consistency

Animal Ethics

That depends on whether there are morally relevant differences between chickens and fish on the one hand and cows, pigs, and sheep on the other. (I Surely that counts for something, morally. Does that mean he was not expressing profound moral truths? Human beings are, and always will be, imperfect, morally and otherwise.

article thumbnail

From Today's Wall Street Journal

Animal Ethics

A decision not to eat dogs has nothing to do with our inherent hypocrisy, but with our relationship to different animals. Dogs were bred to be companion animals; pigs and cows are raised as food. To suggest that eating one and not the other represents a conflict of ethics is preposterous.