article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

He has volunteered to kill a deer cruelly, ineptly and with an outdated weapon that causes additional suffering to the deer. Animals suffer when killed. But whether with a flintlock or a modern rifle, hunting cruelly takes the life of a living, sentient being that has as much right to live as any hunter or writer.

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

14): To the animals being slaughtered, it does not matter whether their killers are local or whether they will be eaten or displayed on a wall. Their suffering is the same. It’s time to stop pandering to hunters and the gun lobby and turn to humane measures to control the deer population and outlaw this barbaric pastime.

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

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 3 of 13

Animal Ethics

Animals in the wild try to escape from hunters.) And killing animals is wrong, since (1) killing involves inflicting pain and inflicting pain is wrong and (2) animals that have a self-concept have a right to life and killing animals with a right to life is wrong. But recall that shmoos want to be eaten. KBJ: Ditto.

Morals 40
article thumbnail

Prima Facie vs. Ultima Facie Wrongness

Animal Ethics

Jonathan Hubbell, a philosophy major at the University of Texas at Arlington, is the newest member of the Animal Ethics blog, and once again, I would like to welcome him aboard. Of course, when hamburgers aren't at stake, most of us think that it would be morally wrong to kill an animal for no good reason.