"When it comes to animals, we suffer from moral schizophrenia. Clinical schizophrenia involves delusional thinking. Our moral thinking about animals is literally delusional. We think of animals as having moral value; we think of ourselves as having an obligation not to impose unnecessary suffering on animals. We object to the imposition of suffering on animals when there is no compelling reason. We then proceed to impose horrible suffering on billions of animals without any reason that is more compelling than pleasure, amusement, or convenience."
******
"In Genesis, we are told that God created the world and gave “dominion” over it to humans but—and here’s the surprise— no one was eating anyone in the beginning. God told humans “I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be for meat.” [12] And then God told all the animals and birds, “I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” [13] So in the beginning, before Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree and were driven from the Garden of Eden, everyone— humans and animals alike— ate only plant foods. It was only after God destroyed the world with a flood that he told Noah that humans are allowed to eat “[ e] very moving thing that liveth.” [14] So we started off in harmony with God as beings who consumed plants. When we fell out with God and were driven from Eden, God permitted us to kill animals as an accommodation to our imperfect state. The Old Testament at least suggests that we should be moving in the direction of getting back to the ideal state.
******
"Humans compare physically much more to herbivores than to carnivores. Carnivores have well-developed claws. We don’t have claws. We also lack the sharp front teeth carnivorous animals need. Although we still have canine teeth, they are not sharp and cannot be used in the way carnivorous animals use their sharp canine teeth. We have flat molar teeth, as seen in herbivores, such as sheep, that we use for grinding. Carnivores have a short intestinal tract so that they can quickly expel decaying meat . Herbivores have a much longer intestinal tract as do humans. Herbivores and humans have weak stomach acid relative to carnivores who have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs to digest meat. Herbivorous animals have well-developed salivary glands for pre-digesting fruits and grains and have alkaline saliva that is needed to pre-digest grains, as do humans. Carnivorous animals do not have similar salivary glands and have acid saliva."
*******
"Yes there are laws that supposedly require that we treat animals “humanely” and that we not inflict “unnecessary” suffering on them. They exist in every state in the United States ; they exist at the federal level ; and just about every country in the world has some law requiring “humane” treatment. Despite any differences, all of these laws share one feature in common: they are useless....
eating animals and animal products is not necessary for human health. Therefore, all of the suffering incidental to using animals as food is unnecessary!...
Even if these laws were effective, which, as we will explain below, they are not, there would still be a great deal of animal suffering under the very best scenario....
the moment we start talking about a law that prohibits imposing “unnecessary” suffering in the context of an activity that is itself not necessary, we are talking nonsense....
Sure, it is always better to do something morally wrong in a less harmful way than a more harmful way. But that does not mean that doing something immoral in a less harmful way makes the immoral act moral."
*******
"The most “humanely” raised animals are still kept and killed in horrible circumstances. Period. All of this talk about “happy” animal products is about us; it’s about making us feel more comfortable about doing something that nags at us. It’s about keeping us from having to recognize that we are all Michael Vick so that we continue to consume animal products. It’s really got nothing to do with the animals. They continue to suffer horribly irrespective of what “happy” label—“free-range,” “cage-free,”“organic,”“Certified Humane Raised and Handled,” or “Freedom Food”—is slapped on their corpses or the products we make from them."
*******
"The solution is not to restructure things to treat animals we are going to eat as we do dogs and cats. Third, as a philosophical matter, this question assumes that if we were able to use animals without making them suffer, our painlessly killing an animal does not, in itself, amount to harming the animal. This is in marked contrast to how we think about humans. Yes, suffering is bad, but we view death, even a painless one, as a bad thing. We humans have an interest in continuing to live. Death frustrates that interest, which is separate from an interest in not suffering. We don’t want to suffer; we also don’t want to die. Animals, many say, don’t want to suffer but they don’t care about dying unless the act of killing involves suffering; it is the suffering that is a problem for the animal, not the killing."
*******
"To say that a ny sentient being is not harmed by death is most peculiar. Sentience is not a characteristic that has evolved to serve as an end in itself. Rather, it is a trait that allows beings to identify situations that are harmful and that threaten survival. Sentience is a means to the end of continued existence. Sentient beings , by virtue of their being sentient, have an interest in remaining alive; that is, they prefer, want, or desire to remain alive. To say that a sentient being is not harmed by death denies that the being has the very interest that sentience serves to perpetuate. It would be analogous to saying that a being with eyes does not have an interest in continuing to see or is not harmed by being made blind. The Jains of India expressed it well long ago: “All beings are fond of life, like pleasure, hate pain, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear.” [30]"
******
"Even if everything we just said is completely wrong and it were possible to have animal agriculture with the animals being treated like dogs and cats and not suffering at all, and being allowed to die of old age, the reality is that products made from such animals are simply not available now in the world in which we live, so what difference does it make to your choice about what to eat tonight? The answer is clear: None."
*******
"There is no such thing out there as a “food chain.” It’s a concept that we have devised so that we can make our exploitation of animals look as though it has some basis in the natural world. It doesn’t. The proclamation that we are at the top of the food chain is equivalent to a proclamation that we are capable of oppressing and exploiting all of the other species on the planet. That may be true but it carries no moral significance."
No comments:
Post a Comment