article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 12 of 13

Animal Ethics

I have argued that there is no incompatibility between being a nonvegetarian and advocating the painless and humane treatment of animals. Consequently, there is no logical connection between being a nonvegetarian and the cruel treatment of animals, let alone the cruel treatment of persons (human or otherwise).

article thumbnail

Deconstructing Slate's "Pepper" Series

Animal Person

There's a vague sense that perhaps he cares about the dogs or thinks that what he does to them might present an ethical dilemma, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's all worth it. It "guarantees humane treatment?" This one gives us a look inside the mind of the vivisectionist, Daniel Engber. Maybe on paper.

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

Jan Narveson on Moral Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

Once one bears in mind that it is this comparative assessment that is required, then it seems to me there will be a strong case (1) for Humane Slaughter, and humane treatment prior to slaughter, and (2) insofar as really painless and comfortable animal-raising is not attained or attainable, giving vegetarianism a try, at least.

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 8 of 13

Animal Ethics

One argument is this: The present practice of treating animals used for food is immoral and should be changed. So, if one wants to change the present practice, the best means is to stop eating meat. First, it is dubious that becoming a vegetarian would have much effect on present practice. One ought to adopt the best means.