I think the "moral" argument is relevant. I think most of us agree that wanton cruelty is Wrong ("Don't tear wings off flies!").
An argument Sidra didn't address, in fact, is "relative cruelty". Can I justify eating meat if I make a point of eating only animals whose lives are spent in grazing in fields instead of in a "scientific" pen too small to allow the animal to turn around?
Absolute Morality If Necessary, But Not Necessarily Absolute Morality
An argument Sidra didn't address, in fact, is "relative cruelty". Can I justify eating meat if I make a point of eating only animals whose lives are spent in grazing in fields instead of in a "scientific" pen too small to allow the animal to turn around?