The article discusses the ethical treatment of animals, primarily through a Benthamite lens that questions the rationale behind animal suffering. It emphasizes that the characteristics that differentiate humans from animals, like reasoning and discourse, should not determine moral consideration. Instead, it posits that suffering is the crucial factor; if animals experience pain, it is our duty to minimize it. The article critiques our justification for using animals, suggesting that most of our animal use cannot be deemed necessary, thus calling for a reevaluation of our moral obligation towards them.
It may come one day to be recognised, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
We all agree that it is wrong to inflict 'unnecessary' suffering on animals. But how much of our animal use can plausibly be described as necessary?
Animals did not care that we killed and ate them; they cared only about how we treated and slaughtered them, and if there was little or no pain and suffering involved.
Collection
[
|
...
]