I submitted the following comment to Temple Grandins essay in the The New York Times - Room for Debate: Dear Temple Grandin: I have a comment and a question. My comment: Your work focuses on industry efficiency and the idea that industry ought, as a matter of economic rationality, to employ standards that are efficient. For example, you state: Properly handled animals are not only an important ethical goal, they also keep the meat industry running safely, efficiently and profitably. (Temple Grandin, Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide 2007 Edition (American Meat Institute Foundation), at 6.) I often use your work to illustrate a point that is central to my own: animal welfare is about efficient exploitation and has nothing to do with recognizing the inherent moral value of nonhumans. My question: In the Room for Debate piece, you appear to be condemning gratuitous cruelty on moral grounds. But if it is not necessary for us to eat animal foods--and the empirical evidence is clear that it is not (indeed, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Heart Association, the Mayo Clinic and other professional/governmental bodies agree that a plant-based diet may offer health benefits)--it would seem that *all* of the suffering and death we impose on food animals is necessarily gratuitous? There may be a psychological difference between the person who kicks the cat and one who buys a streak at the supermarket. There is no moral difference that I can see. What difference do you see? Gary L. Francione Professor, Rutgers University nytimes/roomfordebate/2014/10/01/enforcing-the-legal-rights-of-animals/sadistic-cruelty-to-animals-should-be-punished
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 11:53:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015