We can prove the latter but not the former. Generally speaking, I think it's worse to kill a monkey than a chicken, worse to kill a dog than a shrimp, etc. It also depends on how desperate one is to survive.
We in the rich world have no necessity to consume animal protein; and so,
This, to my mind, is the most compelling argument, again, because it has to do with how desperate one is to survive. It's the worst kind of Western chauvinism to lecture starving people about their dietary choices, but this limits the argument to people who economically have a choice.
It is morally wrong to butcher (other) animals, whether for food, clothing or (presumably especially) for sport.
And this is where the complication arises. Is it morally wrong to butcher other animals for sport? Yes, for the most part, because it's unnecessary. Again, assuming we're talking about the First World, it also seems to be unnecessary to butcher animals for food or clothing.
But but but. That isn't looking at it holistically. How much petroleum goes into transporting and manufacturing synthetic clothing substitutes? You can certainly get by with plant-based fibres if you're living in a warmer climate, but not so much in Canada. How far do fresh fruits and vegetables have to travel to get to your table? How much pesticide does it take to sustain a soya bean farm, and what happens to the run-off, and how many animals does that kill?
To me the first question is sustainability of the ecosystem as a whole. Simply cutting meat out from your diet doesn't address that. There are ethical concerns beyond the suffering of individual animals. You could be less wrong than a lot of vegans by eating local free-range meat, for example.
And, of course, I'm a vegetarian and I frequently make less-than-sustainable dietary choices. And I wear leather. I am bad.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 03:30 am (UTC)We can prove the latter but not the former. Generally speaking, I think it's worse to kill a monkey than a chicken, worse to kill a dog than a shrimp, etc. It also depends on how desperate one is to survive.
We in the rich world have no necessity to consume animal protein; and so,
This, to my mind, is the most compelling argument, again, because it has to do with how desperate one is to survive. It's the worst kind of Western chauvinism to lecture starving people about their dietary choices, but this limits the argument to people who economically have a choice.
It is morally wrong to butcher (other) animals, whether for food, clothing or (presumably especially) for sport.
And this is where the complication arises. Is it morally wrong to butcher other animals for sport? Yes, for the most part, because it's unnecessary. Again, assuming we're talking about the First World, it also seems to be unnecessary to butcher animals for food or clothing.
But but but. That isn't looking at it holistically. How much petroleum goes into transporting and manufacturing synthetic clothing substitutes? You can certainly get by with plant-based fibres if you're living in a warmer climate, but not so much in Canada. How far do fresh fruits and vegetables have to travel to get to your table? How much pesticide does it take to sustain a soya bean farm, and what happens to the run-off, and how many animals does that kill?
To me the first question is sustainability of the ecosystem as a whole. Simply cutting meat out from your diet doesn't address that. There are ethical concerns beyond the suffering of individual animals. You could be less wrong than a lot of vegans by eating local free-range meat, for example.
And, of course, I'm a vegetarian and I frequently make less-than-sustainable dietary choices. And I wear leather. I am bad.