|
I am having trouble finding the articles so I will sum up-
Regan argues that killing animals for meat is bad, unless one is willing to also kill retarded people (severly that is) and newborn babies for meat. But no one would find this permicible.
The argument here is that there is no difference between a severly retarded baby and a calf. It seems to make sense.
Cohen says that animals have no rights because what gives something rights is the ability to be a moral agent. So a retarded baby doesn't have rights, save the ones we give it.
But let me interject something. It is ignorant (no offense) to unjustifyably say that animals have no rights, without an argument for why that is or isn't. Thats not arguing, thats opinion polling.
I am all for meat eating. I, on the other hand, wont eat veal because I see no need for it because, in part, I don't like it more than beef. But we corn feed catle which isn't natural, and we inject them with hormones for milking which causes there utter to get really sore, and I don't have a problem with that because we need milk.
But remember, animals not having rights means I can eat dog or cat. And as many asians know, a cat tastes better if it is shaved and then slowly beaten to death. It ends up more tender with the blood hemrages.
But is it ok to do that, just cause it tastes better?
|