Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
This is a meaningless distinction though. This morally horrible act (factory farming) is ignored because no one is enjoying it, but this less morally horrible act (hunting) is terrible because someone is?
However one can accept factory farming as a necessary evil (though I suspect one that could be made less heinous and still do what it needs to do - I know California is trying some stuff in that area) and still find the thought of killing stuff "icky" and people who enjoy that killing to also be suspect.
This is precisely what the "anti-hunting" people are saying--taking pleasure in the kill is creepy. The rest of the debate is just guessing the frequency of motivations.
I don't agree with hunting so therefore no one should hunt
There are undoubtedly some cretins who rejoice in the "kill"
If hunting was eliminated in Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah, there would be mass chaos on the highways and a sharp increase in auto deaths. The deer population is thriving. Too much.
I'm not sure I can sign onto a theory that says morally horrific behavior is acceptable if it provides a convenience for many, but less horrific behavior is unacceptable because some segment of the population enjoys it.
don't forget, the price of "conventional" farming is reasonable in part because of subsidies (thus all the corn-based feed). I am sure that there are way more sickos working at factory farms than there are walking in the woods at sunrise on a saturday. those expose videos are chilling.
I'm not sure I can sign onto a theory that says morally horrific behavior is acceptable if it provides a convenience for many
check out Joel Salatin and Polyface farms.
Is killing animals under any circumstances morally wrong? Yes.
The deer problem, and others like it, could be solved by tranquilizing and sterilizing. After a couple of generations of that, which would only be a decade or so on the human timescale, the problem would be solved without killing anything.
I'd say the percentage of slaughter yard workers who take pleasure in an animal's pain/death is probably way higher than the percentage of hunters who do.
There's an argument to be made that you can't really complete the calculus on how morally unacceptable an activity is until all of the economic calculus is completed. Because ultimately getting food at a 25% discount over what it otherwise would be, does result in (human) lives saved at the very end of the line, thanks primarily to opportunity cost.
Piggybacking on Voros: Factory farming has probably (indirectly at minimum) saved human lives*. (I'm ignoring quality of life issues for both people and animals for the time being, which is huge for both parties.) At what threshold would you consider some version of factory farming a moral choice?
I accept that humans killing animals is a pretty natural thing
Humans killing each other seems to be pretty natural, too. Why some people get all upset about it, I haven't the foggiest idea.
As for our domestic food supply, I work (a very teeny bit) with a group getting meals to poor kids. We have enough food in aggregate in this country, but I can't extend that to every individual. Presumably, more folks would be in this boat under this scenario...
Must be the thought of all that wasted meat ...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.6107 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed