Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?
7
9
10
6
6
1
7
7
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
As yet unanswered
Reply to Alex M.
The point is that we do not need a complicated theory to see the problem. We all agree--or say we agree--with the notion that it is wrong to impose suffering or death for reason of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But that is precisely what we do when we consume animal products.
I think you mean "raises" a question and not "begs" a question (unless I am misunderstanding your point). In any event, our relationship with nonhuman animals is characterized by our unjustifiable exclusion of nonhumans from our concepts of fundamental justice which, in turn, is related to certain speciesist aspects of our conceptualization of animal interests. Take a look at the Introduction to my most recent book, "Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation" (Columbia U. Press).
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
- Gary L Francione
August 16, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank You Mr. Francione
I appreciate your clarification to my point. I, indeed, meant "raises" a question. Although "begs" seems appropriate as well: If the imposition of suffering can be justified for X, Y, and Z reasons then doesn't it follow that our fundamental premise against "unnecessary suffering" is resting on rather shaky ground – what else could we justify? (Maybe it is, "we say we agree"?) However, as you argue, this is related to speciesism whereby the suffering of nonhumans isn't considered morally relevant. My further point here is that this prejudice violates yet another premise of fundamental justice we hold regarding impartiality and the universality of "moral" rights.
- Alex M
August 21, 2008 2:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.