Free range vs. Barn eggs

A very important question has been overlooked, which is whether we have any sound moral justification for using chickens, or any other animals, for that matter, at all. This should come as no surprise since the animal movement, including the offical "animal rights" movement, does nothing but promote modifications in the treatment of animals we use, as opposed to campaigning against animal use as such.

Returning to the question of justification, and adding the premise that it is not necessary to eat animal products -- we can live perfectly healthily on exclusively plant-based, vegan diets -- it is clear that the only justification we have for eating animal products is pleasure and convenience -- in other words, we like the taste of eggs, milk, and meat. But clearly, that is no justification at all, not, at any rate, when our consumption of these products results in the exploitation, suffering, and death of billions of other feeling and complex animals annually.

We all agree that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering. Yet the vast majority of our animal use cannot plausibly be described as necessary, since, as I said, the only "justification" we have for it is our pleasure and convenience. So, if we take the prohibition on unnecessary animal suffering seriously, which we all claim to do, then we must abolish, and not merely regulate our use of animals. A vegan diet is the only morally acceptable option if we claim to take the prohibition on unnecessary animal suffering seriously.

Moreover, many of us have dogs and cats. We would never dream of exploiting, killing, and eating these animals. Yet we as a culture eat billions of so-called farm animals -- pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. -- annually. There are no morally relevant differences between the animals we treat as members of our families on the one hand, and those we exploit, kill, and eat on the other. So, in order to be consistent, we must stop exploiting and killing so-called farm animals -- and go vegan.

Veganism is not an extreme way of life. It is simply the consistent application of conservative moral principles that we all claim to accept: that we shouldn't cause animals unncessary suffering and that, since we take it to be wrong to exploit and kill cats and dogs, we should, on pain of arbitariness and inconsistency, take it to be wrong to exploit and kill so-called farm animals.

Go vegan.

Or start eating our pets.

The point of argument is that we care deeply about our dogs and cats, who are treated as members of our families, and so wouldn't dream of exploiting and killing them. Clearly, I wouldn't have used the argument if there was any chance that your suggestion -- that we start eating our pets -- was generally something that people would consider.

By your standards we would be virtually paralyzed, unable to do anything since everything you do has a negative impact on someone. Farming kills countless small vertebrates every year. Will the next position on your platform be vermin rights? After all, it's just one step down, right? If you care about humans you must care about animals. Well if you care about animals, you must care about vermin. And if you care about vermin you must care about insects. Pretty soon we're living in an infinitely moral, but ultimately pretty damn hungry society. Where does it stop? Where is the line drawn, and who decides it? What you advocate is merely a redrawing of the line.

Further, given that who knows how many Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Mexican, etc... workers are currently suffering appalling working conditions so we in the West can enjoy "Low, Low Prices", you may be starting in the wrong place. If we don't have enough compassion to change our spending habits for the sake of people, then we sure aren't going to change our dietary habits for the sake of a cow.

I have often wondered why it is socially acceptable to eat one animal and not another. I feel the only logical argument is that of the purpose they were bred for. A cow was bred to be eaten. A cat was bred for companionship.

Personally, if cats were bred for food I would eat them. Horses too. Even dogs. All of course assumes they tasted good. I would not of course kill and eat someone's cherished companion.

The fact is that we care for some animals more than other animals in the same way that we care for some people more than other people. I care for my wife more than I care for a stranger in Australia. I care for my cats more than I care for some cows in Patagonia who are only alive in the first place because of the demand for beef that I, and other meat eaters, generate.

There is nothing amiss about redrawing lines if the line is drawn badly and put in the wrong place. The animal rights position, like feminist and civil rights positions before it, is based on the claim that more line drawing is necessary and desirable. It does not, however, imply the domino effect you suggest. The logic of animal rights "stops" at sentience - and there we have the new line in terms of drawing the boundaries of a moral community.







I think you have a strong point here - maybe if there was more thought about the issue of rights - be they human animal rights or nonhuman animal rights - things would improve.

rogy

Horsemeat is good.

According to philosopher Eddie Izzard, human beings taste like chickens.

rogy

I would listen to antthing Eddie Izzard had to say

By the way, fresh free range eggs, fried are so remarkably different from agribus eggs, some folks don't like them. I'll not eat anything but. Boiled?, I don't know. Never wanted to try. Go farmyard!!!!

Barns dont lay eggs!

wonder what vickit tastes like?

EAT MORE PUSSY!