| Contact | Business | Psychology | Neptune | Science | Politics | Astrology | Index | Karma | Health | MUSIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE FOUNDATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan#Philosophical_foundations WIKIQUOTE: Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, argues that animals are entities which possess "inherent value"[47] and therefore have "basic moral rights," and that the principal moral right they possess is "the right to respectful treatment."[48] Regan additionally argues that animals have a "basic moral right not to be harmed," which can be overridden only when the individual's right not to be harmed is "morally outweighed" by "other valid moral principles."[49][50] From this "rights view," Regan argues that "animal agriculture, as we know it, is unjust" even when animals are raised "humanely."[46][51] Regan argues against various justifications for eating meat including that "animal flesh is tasty," that it is "habit" for "individuals and as a culture", that it is "convenient," that "meat is nutritious," that there is an obligation to the economic interests of farmers or to the economic interests of a country, or that "farm animals are legal property," and finds that all fail to treat animals with the respect due to them by their basic rights.[52] Regan therefore argues that "those who support current animal agriculture by purchasing meat have a moral obligation to stop doing so" and that "the individual has a duty to lead a vegetarian way of life."[53] Gary L. Francione, professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, argues that animals are sentient, and that this is sufficient to grant them moral consideration.[54] Francione argues that "all sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property" and that there is "no moral justification for using nonhumans for our purposes."[54] Francione further argues that adopting veganism should be regarded as the "baseline" action taken by people concerned with animal rights.[54] Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, argues that there is "no moral justification" for refusing to take sentient animal suffering into consideration in ethical decisions.[55] Singer argues that an animal's interests warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist."[55] Based upon his evaluation of these interests, Singer argues that "our use of animals for food becomes questionable—especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity."[56] Singer does not contend that killing animals is always wrong, but that from a practical standpoint it is "better to reject altogether the killing of animals for food, unless one must do so to survive."[57] Singer therefore advocates both veganism and improved conditions for farm animals as practical means to reduce animal suffering.[58][59][60] :UN-WIKIQUOTE |
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BENJAMIN FRANKLINBENJAMIN FRANKLIN