I haven't actually done the reading for my Contemporary Moral Issues class, so I'm basically just blogging related to one of my cousins posts on facebook. Essentially, she posted a picture which is allegedly (which I say because I cannot tell if it is photo-shopped or not) a picture of two men having just killed two dogs by hanging them - the men are smiling in the picture. Apparently, this is a horrendously immoral act, and not excusable by any means.
While I agree that this is a horrible thing to do, this, I feel, should be carried into other subjects. When I informed her that animals were treated far worse in slaughterhouses, and sent her a video, she acknowledged that what is done to those animals is horrible and said that those who cause any animals to suffer should suffer in the same way (which is to say, though she didn't say it - being hung upside-down, dipped into a vat of boiling water, and having their throat cut so that they bleed slowly death). When I proceeded to tell her that anyone who eats animals is causing the suffering, she recanted and said that those animals are raised for food so it's okay to kill them.
So, apparently, animals raised for food are less valuable or have less feelings than those who are domesticated (even if pigs are more intelligent than dogs). It seems to me like some animals, like pigs, are domesticate in other parts of the world, and Indian's don't kill cows. Conversely, in some parts of the world dogs are raised to be slaughtered for human consumption. To me, this seems very subjective to the society. It doesn't seem like the logic follows. If you are against animal abuse, you should probably not consume animals based on the fact that animals raised for food are abused in horrible ways and in horrible numbers. Can someone enlighten me if they have any insight into an opposing view?
No comments:
Post a Comment