Remove Morals Remove Pigs Remove Research Remove Suffering
article thumbnail

From Today's New York Times

Animal Ethics

billion a year between 1997 and 2005, totaling nearly $35 billion, according to researchers at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University. Doesn’t he realize that he does not have to engage in this voluntary activity, which causes moral conflict for himself and suffering for the animals?

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 3 of 13

Animal Ethics

For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Most moral vegetarians list fish and fowl as animals one should not eat. The ability to feel pain is not an obviously plausible way of morally distinguishing microorganisms from other organisms. What Meat Should Not Be Eaten?

Morals 40
article thumbnail

On "EATING ANIMALS" by Jonathan Safran Foer

Animal Person

There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. I have a difficult time understanding how someone has reached that conclusion after so much deliberation and research. N]o fish gets a good death.