Q: Where is the hard line of trivial desire versus vital need when interfering with the lives of animals?
A: I am sure that eating animals is a trivial desire that does not amount to a vital need to interfere in the lives of animals and do the wrong of ending their lives. I feel confident in this belief because eating animals is not necessary for nutrition, and the excessive resources needed to produce meat makes it an exorbitant luxury. That being said it is hard to put down the hard and fast line where it is OK to end the lives of animals when it corresponds to a great need on the part of a more highly sentient being (such as a human).
We can see that most people would agree that if you could choose between taking a humans life and a dogs life it is more moral to take the dogs life in order to save the human. This shows there are situations where human's value, being greater than that of an animal, entitles them to preferential treatment, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any day-to-day situations where humans morally take precedence over animals. Any ideas for the sort of situation you would commonly observe wherein a humans higher moral status should result in a quantifiable difference in treatment (not differences resulting from being a certain species or whatnot)?
A: I am sure that eating animals is a trivial desire that does not amount to a vital need to interfere in the lives of animals and do the wrong of ending their lives. I feel confident in this belief because eating animals is not necessary for nutrition, and the excessive resources needed to produce meat makes it an exorbitant luxury. That being said it is hard to put down the hard and fast line where it is OK to end the lives of animals when it corresponds to a great need on the part of a more highly sentient being (such as a human).
We can see that most people would agree that if you could choose between taking a humans life and a dogs life it is more moral to take the dogs life in order to save the human. This shows there are situations where human's value, being greater than that of an animal, entitles them to preferential treatment, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any day-to-day situations where humans morally take precedence over animals. Any ideas for the sort of situation you would commonly observe wherein a humans higher moral status should result in a quantifiable difference in treatment (not differences resulting from being a certain species or whatnot)?
Hi, I responded to your post here:
ReplyDeletehttp://asfeaa2013s.blogspot.com/2013/03/overseas-obligation.html