article thumbnail

Jan Narveson on Moral Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

For we must realize that the question is whether this justifies the eating of animals in comparison with alternatives. And there are two relevant kinds of alternatives here: one is treating the animals better before we eat them, the only disadvantage of which is that it would make meat considerably more expensive.

article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

The fact that geese mate for life, and that the mate of the poor goose that was slaughtered would step forward, was enough to make me swear off meat forever, if I hadn’t already. We pay lip service to more humane treatment of the animals that we eat, but how many of us look beyond the label on the package of chicken cutlets?

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 8 of 13

Animal Ethics

Consequently, one ought not to eat meat until actual practice is changed. Now there is no doubt that the actual treatment of animals used for food is immoral, that animals are made to suffer needlessly. The question that must be raised, however, is how the conclusion not to eat meat follows from this.