Hi Bryan,
>>Is it acceptable if there are clear alternative sources of non-sentient
>>protein, easily recognized by rational humans, which do not require hunting
>>and the infliction of pain on animals?
>
>I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion, as your comments were
>following my post. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't saying that such
>behavior was necessarily acceptable, just that it was more acceptable than
>killing the animals *without* the intention of eating them.
I guess that what I was getting at--and not very clearly it turns out--is
that I'm not sure that it is any *more* acceptable if you intend to eat
them, precisely because we can recognize that hunting as a means of
procuring food is completely unnecessary and hence their food utility
cannot be a factor in making such a moral judgement.
>And even if it was the
>>purpose, I'm not sure it is justified given the ready alternatives.
>
>This is an interesting issue. I wonder if by alternatives you mean soy or
>other vegetable protein, or if you mean beef, pork, fish, ect. that was
>raised on a farm. If the former, I am in total agreement with you. If the
>latter, I would argue that with many of today's meat farming practices, such
>animals are put through far greater pain, stress, and yes, "suffering" than
>animals who are hunted in their natural environments.
This is an interesting point, because it illustrates that my claim made
above depends on an assumption of perfect nutritional substitutes in the
form of vegetable protein or soy. I wonder if this is legitimate? I agree
however that meat farming practices are often far worse than hunting,
having been exposed to them directly in many instances (I come from a
farming community).
Thanks for the response,
Lorin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|