But that's the thing. We have this situation already today. We do have alternative (& cheap) sources of protein. So why breed more animals?
It seems I am motivated by 'most pleasure/least suffering' and you by the rights of animals not to be exploited by humans. Both valid.
-
-
Perhaps. Of the 3, I'd say live & die free in the wild. I do think some animals have rights, though I think of myself as a consequentialist.
-
Take the blood off our hands and put it on nature's. Suffering & death won't reduce but we will not be responsible for the latter.
-
We'd return to the status quo ante, pre domestication. Pigs would be in the same situation as badgers. I like our arrangement w/ badgers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If we were able to ensure that animals had pleasurable lives with least suffering & could do this without being in the control of humans...
-
My point is that IF we breed them, we have a duty to minimize suffering. But if we liberate them, we don't, and they could fare well.
-
I get that. That's why I said its not an argument for reducing suffering or death. It won't do that. We just won't be responsible for it.
-
It seems you can't be purely utilitarian here. Wouldn't it suggest we go out and alleviate the suffering of wild animals?
-
I think we need to stay in the situation we have re animals currently dependant on us & whether that is better for them or not.
-
I think we should think of farm animals as having the same moral worth as pets. If we breed them, we care for them. No premature death.
-
I know and now we're back to the beginning with the other two options & whether they're better for the animals or just for our consciences.
-
The purely moral thing to do would be to stop breeding immediately and take care of all living farm animals as we would pets.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.