Another Point About Eating/Torturing Animals

[David Sklansky]

Before making my point, I would first like to say that the biggest reason I like Lestat is that he is just about the only one here who actually is willing to learn and possibly even change his behavior based on the arguments presented to him. The latest example is his readiness to become a vegetarian if he deems the points for it logically insurmountable. Very laudable. And this post might add reasons for him to do that. Despite the discomfort it cause him.

So to alleviate that discomfort to some degree I want to point out to him that he can still eat fish. Since it is highly unlikely they actually suffer. I'm saying this seriously.

Anyway this post is spurred by Chris V making the distinction between animal sufferring being incidental to food making and it being the actual reason to do something, like conduct dog fights. They both cause pleasure but only the first is OK in his book.

Here is the problem. Chris V admits that it would be preferable to avoid the suffering if possible. Thus it would be preferable to prepare animals in a way that doesn't make them suffer. But that admission has implications. If he didn't make that admission there wouldn't be a problem. And those who view animals as the same as insects and plants don't get caught in it.

But once you admit that it is better for animals not to suffer you must admit other things. Such as that there is something wrong with you if you enjoy watching that sufferring. But isn't there also something wrong with you if you DON'T MIND that the animal suffers. Suppose you could prevent an animal from suffering by snapping your fingers? Wouldn't there be something wrong with you if you DIDN'T? What about if you had to give up a piece of a Hershey Bar?

The thing is that once you admit that an animal's suffering is in any way worse than a worm's or a plant's (or probably a fish's), then you have to judge yourself based on the lengths you will go to stop it. I don't think many would claim that your family's nutrition should suffer. Or maybe even that you should deprive yourself of a major food source that you are very uncomfortable giving up.

On the other hand if you won't pay the nickel more for a brand that is much more humane, or if you insist on a food that is only very slightly preferable to an alternative that is less tortuous to an animal, you are being a semi hypocrite when you decry Michael Vick