Remove Killing Remove Morals Remove Suffering Remove Tagged
article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 9 of 13

Animal Ethics

For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. So, even if animals are killed painlessly and raised for food in humane ways, it is wrong to kill them. Presumably most animals—even infants—would have the right not to suffer. But this is surely dubious.

Morals 40
article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 4 of 13

Animal Ethics

For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. These people abstain from eggs and dairy products the production of which involves suffering for the animals. To avoid this complication, Martin should have stipulated that no suffering is involved in the production of animal legs.

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 2 of 13

Animal Ethics

For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. SOME PROBLEMS OF MORAL VEGETARIANISM With respect to traditional moral vegetarianism some problems immediately come to the fore. What animals is it morally wrong to eat? But what is the extent of the universal moral principle?

Morals 40
article thumbnail

On Cannibalism

Animal Person

He writes: There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.). Do they suffer any more or less in death? I think not.

Pigs 100
article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 1 of 13

Animal Ethics

A third of a century ago, when the modern animal-liberation movement was in its infancy, Martin published an essay entitled “A Critique of Moral Vegetarianism,” Reason Papers (fall 1976): 13-43. You will, therefore, agree with Martin about moral vegetarianism but not about Christianity. Another reason is moral. One is health.

article thumbnail

On ANIMAL EQUALITY, by Joan Dunayer

Animal Person

Minus that role, the term implies, such an animal has no place; if they aren't some human's companion, or their companionship fails to please, they can be abandoned or killed" (8). Often it permanently disables or kills. In their publications, vivisectors virtually never state that they inflicted the harm suffered by their victims.

Animal 100
article thumbnail

Roger Cohen Realizes Dogs=Pigs, Sort Of

Animal Person

Do they suffer any more or less in death? There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.). Are they any more or less sentient?

Pigs 100