I believe eating animals is morally superior to being a vegetarian/vegan, but only if the suffering of the animals is minimized (but ideally they don't suffer at all and enjoy life). Let me know what you think, I have yet to find a single person that agrees. I'll try to keep it short but it's hard to explain.
The decision to eat animals (in almost all modern cases) is not a decision between an animal living and dying, it's the decision between an animal never being born, or an animal being born and then eventually being killed. This is because if everyone were vegetarians, the number of animals born each year would be drastically lower. Whether we eat animals or not, there's a certain amount that will live in the wild or as pets, but only if we eat meat are the other animals brought into the world.
In order to determine what is morally superior, one method is to look at what you would prefer if you were in the position of the animal. Would you prefer to never be born, or be born and then eventually killed? I think the main determining factor should be how much you expect to suffer if born. If animals bred to be eaten suffer greatly, it's reasonable to prefer to not be born because you avoid a life of extreme suffering. This is the main reason why I think treating these animals poorly is morally inferior to being a vegetarian.
But take the other extreme, say the animals had a fairly enjoyable life, and then were killed painlessly. I find it hard to believe that most wouldn't prefer that to never being born (I can share reasons/analogies if requested). In that case it's actually in the animals' best interest that we eat meat, because if we didn't they don't get born, but if we do they get something preferential to not being born. Basically, the morally superior option is that which the subject prefers, therefore treating animals well before killed is morally superior to vegetarianism, and vegetarianism is morally superior to treating animals poorly before killed.
An analogy to better demonstrate my point is as follows. Say you have a decently enjoyable life, and you are given a two high tech devices; a device that lets you see into the future, and a button which you can press to turn back time and prevent yourself from being born. You look into the future and see that you are eventually murdered in an unpreventable way. You have the option to either choose to continue life and eventually be murdered, or prevent yourself from being born. I think most people would think, "Well it sucks to eventually get murdered, but a life involving that is still better than no life at all." and then choose not to push the button. Now say instead of seeing their own future and the button preventing their own birth, it was for someone else. The decision should be the same, because you're just deciding which option you think they would prefer, and it's reasonable to assume most would prefer life+murder to no life ever. When we are deciding to eat meat or not, we are essentially deciding whether or not to press this button on behalf of many animals.
Thanks for reading, looking forward to comments. I am happy to elaborate on any of the points, because I left out a lot in the interest of keeping the OP short.
The decision to eat animals (in almost all modern cases) is not a decision between an animal living and dying, it's the decision between an animal never being born, or an animal being born and then eventually being killed. This is because if everyone were vegetarians, the number of animals born each year would be drastically lower. Whether we eat animals or not, there's a certain amount that will live in the wild or as pets, but only if we eat meat are the other animals brought into the world.
In order to determine what is morally superior, one method is to look at what you would prefer if you were in the position of the animal. Would you prefer to never be born, or be born and then eventually killed? I think the main determining factor should be how much you expect to suffer if born. If animals bred to be eaten suffer greatly, it's reasonable to prefer to not be born because you avoid a life of extreme suffering. This is the main reason why I think treating these animals poorly is morally inferior to being a vegetarian.
But take the other extreme, say the animals had a fairly enjoyable life, and then were killed painlessly. I find it hard to believe that most wouldn't prefer that to never being born (I can share reasons/analogies if requested). In that case it's actually in the animals' best interest that we eat meat, because if we didn't they don't get born, but if we do they get something preferential to not being born. Basically, the morally superior option is that which the subject prefers, therefore treating animals well before killed is morally superior to vegetarianism, and vegetarianism is morally superior to treating animals poorly before killed.
An analogy to better demonstrate my point is as follows. Say you have a decently enjoyable life, and you are given a two high tech devices; a device that lets you see into the future, and a button which you can press to turn back time and prevent yourself from being born. You look into the future and see that you are eventually murdered in an unpreventable way. You have the option to either choose to continue life and eventually be murdered, or prevent yourself from being born. I think most people would think, "Well it sucks to eventually get murdered, but a life involving that is still better than no life at all." and then choose not to push the button. Now say instead of seeing their own future and the button preventing their own birth, it was for someone else. The decision should be the same, because you're just deciding which option you think they would prefer, and it's reasonable to assume most would prefer life+murder to no life ever. When we are deciding to eat meat or not, we are essentially deciding whether or not to press this button on behalf of many animals.
Thanks for reading, looking forward to comments. I am happy to elaborate on any of the points, because I left out a lot in the interest of keeping the OP short.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/271HB8q
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire