| Contact | Business | Psychology | Neptune | Science | Politics | Astrology | Index | Karma | Health | MUSIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALBERT EINSTEIN
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN|
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 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse#Animal_welfare_concerns
WIKIQUOTE: Animal welfare concerns For her book Slaughterhouse, Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming Association (HFA), interviewed slaughterhouse workers in the U.S. who say that, because of the speed with which they are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while apparently alive, and still blinking, kicking, and shrieking. Eisnitz argues that this is not only cruel to the animals, but also dangerous for the human workers, as cows weighing several thousands of pounds thrashing around in pain are likely to kick out and debilitate anyone working near them.[12] According to the HFA, Eiznitz interviewed slaughterhouse workers representing over two million hours of experience, who, without exception, told her that they have beaten, strangled, boiled, and dismembered animals alive, or have failed to report those who do. The workers described the effects the violence has had on their personal lives, with several admitting to being physically abusive or taking to alcohol and other drugs.[13] The HFA alleges that workers are required to kill up to 1,100 hogs an hour, and end up taking their frustration out on the animals.[13] Eisnitz interviewed one worker, who had worked in ten slaughterhouses, about pig production. He told her: “ Hogs get stressed out pretty easy. If you prod them too much, they have heart attacks. If you get a hog in the chute that's had the shit prodded out of him and has a heart attack or refuses to move, you take a meat hook and hook it into his bunghole. You try to do this by clipping the hipbone. Then you drag him backwards. You're dragging these hogs alive, and a lot of times the meat hook rips out of the bunghole. I've seen hams — thighs — completely ripped open. I've also seen intestines come out. If the hog collapses near the front of the chute, you shove the meat hook into his cheek and drag him forward.[14] ”It is observed that animals lose weight when stressed and meat loses taste quality. This does motivate companies to try to control the stress levels of animals as much as possible.[citation needed] :UN-WIKIQUOTE |

